Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

POLAND (UKRAINIAN MINORITY).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, what instructions have been given to our representatives at Geneva concerning the grievances of the Ukrainian minority in Poland now before the League?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Captain Eden): The British delegate at Geneva is aware of the views of His Majesty's Government on this matter, which have net changed since the last Secretary of State was a member of the Committee of Three appointed to advise upon it. The matter is still under consideration by the committee, and it would be improper to make any farther statement at present.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Member consider the utility and propriety of asking the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for their views and experience on this question?

Captain EDEN: I shall be glad to consider any representations that are made to me by any hon. Members.

AMBASSADORS' CONFERENCE.

Mr. DAY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the last occasion on which the Ambassadors' Conference met; and whether any representations have been made to the League of Nations for the work done by this conference to he taken over by that body?

Captain EDEN: The last occasion on which the Conference of Ambassadors met was on the 12th January last. So far as I am aware, no representations have been made in the sense suggested by the hon. Member. The work of the conference has now reduced itself to dealing with minor questions, some of which are the sole concern of the ex-allied Powers. For such purposes this conference forms a convenient channel for carrying out the necessary exchange of views between the Powers concerned.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether this subject has been considered by His Majesty's Government?

Captain EDEN: I have said that the matters in question are of secondary importance, and there seems no particular reason for altering the present procedure.

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the attitude of the Government towards the proposal made at the League of Nations Assembly by Signor Grandi for an armaments truce until the conclusion of the Disarmament Conference?

Captain EDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on Monday last.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not possible foe the Government to say at once that, in principle, they accept this excellent proposal?

Captain EDEN: The appropriate committee of the Assembly is now considering the resolution which has been moved by certain Governments. It is obviously necessary that, until we know in detail what that resolution entails, we should reserve our judgment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in the answer given to me there was no information at all as to our attitude?

Captain EDEN: There was as much information as I have just given to the hon. Member.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is not the reduction of armaments the most fertile means of economy that can be adopted?

ECONOMIC SITUATION.

Mr. MANDER: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what measures for the economic restoration of Europe are before the League of Nations at the present time, and to what extent the Government is supporting them?

Sir HILTON YOUNG (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Commission of Inquiry for European Union has forwarded a report by its Co-ordination Sub-Committee on Economic Questions to the Assembly of the League. This report embodies a report by a subcommittee of economic experts, which contains a number of suggestions of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind, and will no doubt be published shortly as a League document. I have not yet learnt the result of the Assembly's deliberations during the past week, and decision as to the action of particular Governments must await those deliberations.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that the problems of this country can only he solved in the long run by international action, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is desirable that some Minister should be at Geneva at the present time taking part in these discussions?

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in this matter the Government have yet received their instructions from the bankers?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

DEBTS, CLAIMS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.

Mr. ALBERY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House what progress has now been made in the matter of the Anglo-Soviet debts question?

Captain EDEN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to similar questions on Monday last.

BRITISH SUBJECT'S DEATH.

Mr. EDE: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet received the report of His Majesty's Consul-General at Leningrad on the circumstances of the shooting of Mr,
Stephenson, of South Shields, on 18th August, 1931, and on the trials of the sentry who shot him; has he communicated the report to the relatives; and what further steps does he intend to take in this case?

Captain EDEN: The report has just been received, and there has not yet been time for its examination. Apart from the report, arrangements are being made for the collection, from the officers and crew of Steamship "Kingswood," of such supplementary evidence as may bear on the case. Pending an examination of all the evidence available, I can make no statement on the possible course of future action.

Mr. EDE: Will the hon. and gallant Member show me the report; and will he bear in mind that this case has excited the utmost interest and apprehension among the seamen of the North-East Coast?

Captain EDEN: I shall be glad to give any information that I can to the hon. Member. The evidence of the sailors has been difficult to procure from the Steamship "Kingswood," because their ship has gone direct to Durban; but we have made arrangements to obtain their evidence and any information that they can give, as soon as the ship reaches Durban.

Mr. EDE.: May I be shown this report, or a copy of it?

Captain EDEN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me an opportunity of looking at it first myself.

Mr. EDE: May I take it that there is no refusal to show the report to me?

Captain EDEN: I think we must leave it at that.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Have the Foreign Office asked for compensation for the relatives?

Captain EDEN: Until we have considered the report we cannot ask for anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (PROPOSED CUSTOMS UNION).

Mr. COCKS: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
he can make any statement as to the present position of the Austro-German Customs Union proposal?

Captain EDEN: On the 5th September the Permanent Court of International Justice, by eight votes to seven, gave their opinion that the proposed Austro-German Customs Union was incompatible with the terms of Protocol No. 1, signed at Geneva on the 4th October, 1922. Two days previously the German and Austrian Ministers for Foreign Affairs had, at a meeting of the European Commission, announced the decision of their Governments to refrain from giving effect to the Vienna Protocol of the 19th March, 1931.

RUBBER INDUSTRY.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make a statement as to the progress of the negotiations with the Netherlands Government with a view to the restriction of the production or shipment of rubber from British and Dutch possessions, so as to avoid the collapse of the rubber-planting industry?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No negotiations on the subject are being conducted.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has come, considering the distress in those areas of the British Empire, that negotiations should be undertaken?

Mr. THOMAS: The question put to me was whether I could make a statement on the progress of negotiations. I have answered that there are no negotiations. If the hon. Member will put down a question of broad principle, I will answer it on its merits.

Mr. COCKS: Was this proposal abandoned under the pressure of a foreign financial Power?

RUSSIA.

Commander BELLAIRS: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of manufactured goods sent by Soviet Russia to the United Kingdom in 1930; and what has been the value up to the latest available date in 1931.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Major Gwilym Lloyd George): According to the trade returns of the Soviet Union the value of goods classed therein as manufactured articles exported to the United Kingdom during 1930 amounted to 5,263,000 gold roubles, or about £556,500 at the par rate of exchange. In addition, petroleum products—including refined petroleum which is classed in the United Kingdom trade returns among articles wholly or mainly manufactured—were exported to the United Kingdom to the value of 38,473,000 gold roubles or £4,068,000. No corresponding information for any period of 1931 is yet available in my Department.

Mr. TOOLE: Will the hon. Gentleman give us any figures regarding the exports from this country to Russia during the same period?

NEW INDUSTRIES (CREDITS).

Major HERBERT EVANS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to providing opportunities for employment, he will consider the sanction of credits towards financing the establishment of new industries for producing articles now wholly imported from abroad for which there is an assured home market of substantial and increasing extent?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I fear that the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion is impracticable.

Major EVANS: May I be informed why it is in practicable? Seeing the quantity of money we are paying out to the Employment Exchanges now, cannot some of that be transferred in the form of credits?

The PRIME MINISTER: That proposal has been consistently opposed by the party to which the hon. and gallant Member belongs.

MEXICO (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the application of Mexico for admission to the League of Nations has been accompanied by any notification by the Mexican Government
that it proposes to honour its obligations to British holders of Mexican Government bonds now in default for over 17 years; and will he instruct our representative at Geneva to ask the Mexican Government its intention in this default?

Captain EDEN: So far as I am at present aware, the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the intention of the Mexican Government, it has been frequently stated in this House that the International Committee of Bankers are the properly qualified agents of the bondholders, and are authorised to carry on negotiations with the Mexican Government on their behalf. They have not appealed to His Majesty's Government for any assistance. In the circumstances it is not apparent how the action suggested would serve the interests of the British bondholders. Should representations become desirable, they would be made through the usual diplomatic channels.

FAR EAST (COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA).

Mr. SMITHERS: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the discoveries in Shanghai of a centre of Far East Communist organisation; and whether he can make any statement as to the attempts to carry on this propaganda in British territory in the Far East, which constitute a breach of the undertaking to refrain from propaganda?

Captain EDEN: My attention has been drawn to this case, which is at present forming the subject of judicial proceedings by the Chinese courts in Shanghai. Pending the conclusion of the trial, I regret that it is impossible to say with any precision how far British interests are affected.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to insist that the undertaking with regard to propaganda shall be complied with, and whenever that undertaking is broken, will they make the most urgent protests against it?

Captain EDEN: That question has not yet arisen here.

Mr. McSHANE: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that groups of Communists were found studying the propaganda issued by the hon. Member?

ADMIRALTY CHARTS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any revision of charts has been made of an extensive character as the result of recent earthquakes: and, if so, where?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No changes in depths resulting from recent earthquakes in England have been found by His Majesty's surveying ships working round the coasts. Certain minor changes in depths in deep water beyond the Continental Shelf off Nova Scotia as a result of the earthquake of the 18th November, 1929, have been reported by telegraph cable ships and these depths have been embodied in the appropriate Admiralty charts.

Mr. COCKS: Will the First Lord give us any information about the recent earthquake on the Treasury Bench?

PALESTINE (LIEUTENANT JABOTINSKY).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lieutenant Jabotinsky may now be allowed hack in Palestine?

Mr. THOMAS: After considering this matter further in consultation with the acting High Commissioner, I am satisfied that the circumstances are not such as would justify any modification, at the present juncture, of the attitude adopted by the late Secretary of State.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lieutenant Jabotinsky fought for us in the War and was decorated, and that he has been excluded from Palestine solely because of the Arab massacres?

Mr. THOMAS: The question as to what should be the attitude to those who fought in the War will have to be considered in relationship to their present
attitude. I am sure that the late Secretary of State, who is always anxious to preserve what is called freedom of speech, arrived at this decision in the best interests of Palestine and in the best interests of everybody.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the previous Secretary of State, who knew Jabotinsky well, did not have quite a different opinion of him?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know the opinion of the previous Secretary of State, but the late Secretary of State, Lord Passfield, considered the whole situation before coming to a decision. I see no reason to alter his decision.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not this gentleman a firebrand; and would it not be unwise to allow him to enter Palestine in the present state of affairs in that country?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

CROWN COLONIES AND DEPENDENCIES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which Crown Colonies or other Dependencies have failed to balance their Budgets for the current year; and has he yet formed an estimate of the grants-in-aid or loans which we shall be called upon to find at the close of their financial year?

Mr. THOMAS: The question, as worded, would appear to imply that any deficits incurred by Crown Colonies or Dependencies become automatically a charge upon Parliamentary Votes. I have no doubt that the right hon. and gallant Member is aware that this is not the case. The financial depression has affected very adversely the finances of a number of Crown Colonies or Dependencies and they are meeting the situation by retrenchment in the public services and by additional taxation. Only in the last resort will this House be invited to vote money for their assistance by way of grant-in-aid or loan. In a number of cases the deficiencies, which are anticipated in the current financial year will be met from resources of the Dependencies concerned. Every possible effort will be made to avoid the contingency of further demands on the Exchequer, and to reduce such demands as may prove inevitable to a minimum. In the meantime, I would prefer not to
make any statement in anticipation of information which is not at present available. I may add that I have already addressed a circular despatch to all the Colonies and Dependencies calling attention to the pressing needs of the financial situation.

SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 39.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether it is proposed to continue the research schemes into the hydrogenation of tar oils and coal decided upon by the late Government?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): The schemes for research into the hydrogenation of tar oils and coal referred to by the hon. Member are at present under review together with other work of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in the light of the present economic situation.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no modification with regard to this process, below what is necessary to obtain reliable results?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have taken the greatest possible interest in this matter. As I have said in reply to this question, all the work of scientific and industrial research is now under review. If the hon. Member will put down another question next week I can give him a definite and final reply.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the importance of these research proposals in relation to the position of the British coal industry?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have gone into this question long before the hon. Gentleman.

BRITISH CAPITAL ABROAD (CONVERSION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any measures are under consideration to prevent the transfer of British capital and funds abroad into foreign currency, in view of the financial situation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The Government will not omit from consideration any
measure which might be necessary in dealing with the financial situation. My right hon. Friend wishes to add that any British citizen who increases the strain on the exchange by purchasing foreign securities himself or assisting others to do so is deliberately adding to the country's difficulties.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why this matter has not been treated as one of emergency, in view of the known fact that very large transfers by British subjects have taken place?

Major ELLIOT: I have nothing whatever to add to the answer that I have given.

FIGHTING SERVICES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what proportion the £5,000,000 cut proposed in the three Fighting Services, other than on pay and pensions, is to be distributed between the three Services; and whether this saving is to be made in warlike equipment, weapons, warships, and the like, or in amenities, buildings, etc.?

Major ELLIOT: The total savings which will be made in the Estimates for the Fighting Services in 1932 will be as follow:



£


Navy
3,942,000


Army
3,693,000


Air Force
954,000


Total
£8,589,000


The saving on pay and pensions is estimated to be as follows:



£


Navy
1,612,000


Army
1,960,000


Air Force
194,000


The difference between the actual saving on pay and pensions and the total cut in each case will be made good by reductions under other heads but the exact methods by which this will be achieved are still under consideration by the respective Departments.

ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. WISE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister on what date or dates the Economic Council or any committee or
members of it were consulted concerning the measures to be adopted for dealing with the financial crisis?

The PRIME MINISTER: The proceedings of the Economic Advisory Council and of its committees are confidential; and I am not, therefore, prepared to add anything to the answer which I gave the hon. Member in reply to a similar question on Monday last.

Mr. WISE: Would it not be better for the Prime Minister frankly to admit that the Economic Council was not consulted rather than continue to evade the question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should not make any such statement, which would not be true.

Mr. WISE: Will the Prime Minister say which is untrue, the statement that he has evaded the issue or the statement that the Economic Council were not consulted?

Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the widespread effect that the recommendations of the Economic Council have upon the nation, would it not be a wise thing for the Prime Minister to issue a report of the findings of the Economic Council and also the reasons for those findings?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that that question has been answered by the first answer that I gave to the question on the Paper.

PROPOSED CUTS (ADJUSTMENTS).

Captain Sir ERNEST BENNETT: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to classes of persons involved by various economies whose cases are of peculiarly great hardship for special reasons, and whether the Government can see its way to consider them?

The PRIME. MINISTER: Yes, Sir. Various cases have been brought to the attention of the Government in which particular classes of persons affected by the proposed cuts have been represented to be unfairly affected. These difficulties have been the subject of consideration by the Government, which believes that they can generally be adjusted without materially affecting the Budget Estimates.

Mr. ALPASS: Will that include the whole of the unemployed?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, it will not.

Mr. BOWEN: Does it include consideration of many of the civil servants who are subject to more than one cut?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is another matter for which this Government are not responsible.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the reconsideration include all classes of teachers?

The PRIME MINISTER: The consideration is not yet complete. The statement regarding class and class will be made as decisions are come to. I anticipate—though I make no pledge—that during the Debates on the Committee stage of the Bill, some of these announcements will be made.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that the Prime Minister has made a definite statement that the unemployed are not going to be affected by this reconsideration, has he now come to the conclusion definitely that 15s. 3d., or 23s. 3d. for two persons, is not an undue hardship?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. SPEAKER: The questions that are being put are not relevant to this question.

Mr. COCKS: My question is very relevant. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered the very hard case of the Attorney-General?

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: Has the question been reduced to this, that 15s. 3d. is too small a matter to be considered by the Prime Minister?

The PRIME MINISTER: The point is that within; certain general blocks of cuts there are details that do not fit very well into the general scheme, and we are dealing with these.

Mrs. MANNING: Are the adjustments which the Prime Minister mentions to be made at the expense of other classes or at the expense of the Budget?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Lady must wait until the specific announcements are made.

Mr. CLYNES: Will the Prime Minister give an indication when the announcements will be made, and will he undertake, in the event of a question being submitted from this side of the House, to give as early as possible a list of the persons affected? Does he not now consider that his replies to-day offer some justification for the criticisms that have been made?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not want to go into the controversy about the criticisms that have been made. What I say is that the scheme at which we have been working has revealed certain of these points, and we are very anxious that they should be met if possible. I cannot say when an announcement will be made, but an attempt will be made to refer to it a little more fully during the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. LOGAN: In view of extreme poverty in our city, will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the question of the unemployed if a deputation waits on him and points out our wants?

Mr. McSHANE: Has it been necessary for discontent in the Navy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the Prime Minister assure me that the particular case of the Glasgow teachers, who have already had a cut of 10 per cent. in wages, will be taken very carefully into account so that they will not have an additional cut of 15 per cent.?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the Glasgow teachers, and also the Perthshire teachers—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the county of Carmarthen teachers."]—who have already had cuts recently, is under consideration.

NAVAL RATES OF PAY (ATLANTIC FLEET).

Captain W. G. HALL: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is able to give the House any information as to why ships of the Atlantic Fleet have been recalled?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement about the reported unrest in the Royal Navy over pay cuts?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have also a question from the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Fa11e). The Board of Admiralty have had under their earnest consideration the representations received from the Officer Commanding the Atlantic Fleet as to the hardships involved in certain classes of cases by the reductions ordered by His Majesty's Government in naval rates of pay. Their Lordships have directed the ships of the Atlantic Fleet to proceed to their home ports forthwith. Personal investigation will then be made by the Commanders-in-Chief and representatives of the Admiralty into those classes of cases in which it is alleged that the reductions press exceptionally on those concerned. His Majesty's Government have authorised the Board of Admiralty to make proposals for alleviating the hardship in these classes as soon as the facts have been ascertained by the contemplated investigation.

Captain HALL: May I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to remember, when he and the Board of Admiralty go into this matter, that at the moment an able seaman suffers a 25 per cent. cut in salary, whereas the First Lord of the Admiralty and the rest of the Cabinet are suffering only 20 per cent. cut, and other members of the Government only 10 per cent.; and will he remember that these men, owing to the conditions of their service, are not in an adequate position to represent their case?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot accept either of the assumptions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I deprecate questions of that kind, which, I am sure, are not in the interests of the Service.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that any change in the incidence of pay can be arranged without the consent of this House, or is it necessary for this House to authorise them?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that any action by this House is called for as to any changes which investigations show to be desirable.

Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: Did the late Cabinet favour these cuts?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: While welcoming the announcement that a revision is to take place, may we ask the Prime Minister if he proposes to revise every one of the other proposed cuts?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that that question has been put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows perfectly well that, even when temporary consideration was being given to these blocks of cuts, it was clearly understood that each Department, when it produced the saving, could adjust internally the burden of the saving itself. That was a general rule laid down and applicable to all Departments.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why it is these investigations are being made now, and why the men's conditions were not inquired into by himself, on his own responsibility, before these cuts were announced?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member knows that this Government succeeded to a situation in which rapid action is essential—

Mr. MACLEAN: You have got it.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: —and the only information which I could make available when they were considering this matter was the information which had already been made available for my predecessor.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the requisite machinery for—[Interruption.]

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: May I ask a question?

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Should I be in Order in asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Oh, no! The hon. and gallant Member for Central Portsmouth (Captain Hall) has given notice about it. It is all arranged.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: On a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I am a very infrequent speaker and a still more infrequent questioner in the House, and I rose before anybody else to ask a Supplementary question.

Mr. SPEAKER: There does not seem to be any need for further supplementary questions.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: May I ask one question as to whether—

HON. MEMBERS: Name!

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I put a point of Order?—[Interruption.]

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: May I—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I would rather be named if I cannot ask a question.

Captain HALL: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has already asked a long supplementary question and has had two answers.

Captain HALL: I ask leave—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I ask leave to move the Adjournment, of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the abandonment of the Atlantic Fleet exercises on account of unrest over pay cuts."

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter which clearly does not come under the provisions of Standing Order No. 10. The matter could just as well be debated tomorrow as to-day.

Mr. THURTLE: May I put to you as a precedent the fact that when there was brought to his notice the fact that two battalions of the Guards were being disbanded the Speaker at that time accepted that as a definite matter of urgent public importance; and may I submit to you that a question of grave insubordination in our premier Service is indeed a matter of first importance, and of urgent importance?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has referred me to a case which he thinks is similar to the present one. I have not had an opportunity of looking into that case, but it is quite obvious to me that the present circumstances would not justify me in accepting the Motion under Standing Order 10.

Mr. THURTLE: May I submit to you that this matter is both urgent and important, important in the highest degree and also urgent in the highest degree—
of great public importance. If this is not a matter upon which the Adjournment of the House may be moved, what matter is there?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly this is not such a case.

INTERNATIONAL TIN POOL.

Mr. STRAUSS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what financial liabilities have been entered into by the British, Malayan and Nigerian Governments in respect of the international tin pool?

Mr. THOMAS: No financial liabilities in respect of the tin pool have been entered into by the British, Malayan or Nigerian Governments.

Mr. STRAUSS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Malayan Government have entered into any liability to finance stock outside the pool?

Mr. THOMAS: I have answered the question on the Paper. I presume the hon. Member has in mind the fact that in the last quarter the Malayan Government exceeded their quota. I am taking the necessary steps to see that Malaya adjusts that position. If you enter into an agreement with foreign countries, it is obviously necessary to show that you intend to keep it.

Mr. STRAUSS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British, Malayan or Nigerian Governments have a representative on the committee of the international tin pool; and, if so, who that representative is?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir; but the chairman of the International Tin Committee, Sir John Campbell, is ex officio chairman of the International Tin Pool Committee.

Mr. STRAUSS: Does he not represent the British or the Malayan Government on the pool?

Mr. THOMAS: He is obviously conversant with the views of the British Government and the Malayan Government. The principle was determined after careful consideration by the late Government, and I am endorsing that policy because I think it is right.

Mr. STRAUSS: As there is a representative of the Government on the Commission, will the Government share any of the losses or profits made under the pool?

Mr. THOMAS: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a specific question on that point, and I will answer it. I cannot answer a hypothetical question.

GOLD COAST PORTS.

Mr. HORRABIN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been arrived at with regard to the closing of the ports of Cape Coast and Saltpond, on the Gold Coast, in order to give preference to the Central Province railway and Takoradi harbour?

Mr. THOMAS: No such proposal is before the Colonial Office.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DOMINIONS AND COLONIES).

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the method of censoring films in those British Colonies wherein the level of cinema entertainment for Europeans has to be subordinated to the intellect of the natives; and how many British-produced films have been actually barred from exhibition in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika during the past year?

Mr. THOMAS: No British-produced film was barred from exhibition in Kenya during the past year, and only one in Uganda. No record of the country of origin of films censored is kept in Tanganyika, but only two films were completely rejected by the local Board of Censors during the past year. I am afraid that I could not give an adequate account of the method of censorship within the limits of a Parliamentary answer.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the films?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir.

Mr. COCKS: In regard to that part of the question which refers to the effect which cinema films may have upon the natives, will the Secretary of State see that no films representing the present Cabinet are shown?

Mr. THOMAS: I have already taken into consideration the case of the natives, and, if there was a suggestion that there should be a film of this House, I should see that the hon. Member was not included.

Mr. DAY: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs which of the Dominions have now introduced legislation corresponding with the quota clauses contained in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; and will he give particulars?

Mr. THOMAS: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to his question of the 17th February, legislation of this nature has been passed in New Zealand and in Victoria. Since that date similar powers have been taken in the Province of Ontario in Canada.

Mr. DAY: Is anything being done to try to get the other Dominions to implement their existing legislation and to bring it into line with our legislation?

Mr. THOMAS: We are in communication with them. As the hon. Member will see, since my previous reply one other has come into line. The matter is not being lost sight of.

BRITISH EAST AFRICA (LOCUST PEST).

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the cost to Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika of the suppression of the recent locust invasion; and what reports he has received as to this pest being endemic or otherwise?

Mr. THOMAS: As regards the first part of the question, the Governors of the Dependencies have already been asked to furnish particulars of the cost of measures against the recent locust invasion, and I will communicate this information when received to the hon. Member. As regards the second part, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The principal species of locusts that have recently invaded Uganda, Kenya and the Tanganyika Territory, namely, the Desert Locust (Schistocerca gregaria, Forsk.) and the Tropical Migratory Locust (Locusta migratoria migrator-
ioides, R. and F.), may become temporarily endemic in those countries in the sense that they may find summer or temporary breeding places there. The information at present available regarding the distribution of the winter or permanent breeding places of these species in Tropical Africa is at present very incomplete. There is, however, a certain amount of evidence that there may be some permanent breeding places of the Desert Locust along the northern frontier of Kenya such as the Turkana Desert, East of Lake Rudolf, and such breeding places are known to exist just over the Frontier in Jubaland.

As regards the Tropical Migratory Locust, no permanent breeding places are as yet known in Eastern Africa, the regions most under suspicion in this respect being in the Western half of the continent. It should be observed, however, that numerous areas adapted to the temporary breeding of this species exist in Eastern Tropical Africa. It is therefore quite possible for an outbreak of this species to continue to increase in intensity for a number of years and to assume very large dimensions.

JUBALAND (ELEPHANT HUNTING).

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any progress has been made in the negotiations with Italy regarding the better control of elephant-hunting for ivory on the Jubaland frontier?

Mr. THOMAS: No progress has been made in these negotiations. The question of introducing more effective measures for the protection of game in Africa by international agreement was raised at a congress recently held in Paris at which His Majesty's Government was officially represented and the matter will be further considered when the report of the proceedings of the congress is available.

KENYA (DIRECTOR,OF EDUCATION).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the usual requirement for the majority of official posts in Kenya that the holder shall be able to speak Swahili has been dispensed with in the case of the Director of Education; and what
arrangements are made to enable him to understand what is going on when he inspects a native school?

Mr. THOMAS: The present Director of Education was selected for appointment after long experience and distinguished service elsewhere in Africa. His duties are connected with general administration and do not involve the detailed inspection of schools in which only native languages are employed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

AIR MAIL SERVICES (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. O. LEWIS: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking for the establishment of a regular air-mail service between England and Australia?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): A scheme for the establishment of a regular airmail service to Australia is still under consideration by the Governments concerned. My Noble Friend is most anxious to see this scheme carried into effect as early as possible, but, since it involves payment of a subsidy, I fear that the financial situation is likely to retard its progress.

AIR, SIGNS.

Mr. DAY: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what reply has been sent to the civil aviation section of the London Chamber of Commerce with reference to their suggestion for the use of standard air signs being placed on prominent buildings throughout Great Britain?

Sir P. SASSOON: So far as I am aware no official communication from the London Chamber of Commerce of the character stated has been received by the Air Ministry. A memorandum on the subject of a scheme of standard air signs by means of ground markings has, however, been prepared by the Automobile Association and has received tie approval of the Air Ministry. I understand that the civil aviation section of the London Chamber of Commerce has issued this memorandum to local authorities and other bodies throughout the country.

Mr. DAY: Will the Under-Secretary say what is the attitude of the Air Ministry towards the memorandum?

Sir P. SASSOON: They have approved it. The London Chamber of Commerce have issued it, and it now remains for local authorities to carry it out.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD SERVICE LICENCES (LEDBURY TRANSPORT COMPANY).

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the petition of 4,000 of the inhabitants of Wokingham and district against the action of the traffic commissioners in refusing to license the Led-bury Transport Company's vehicles Reading-London has been considered by him; and whether, in view of the recommendations of the Wokingham Town Council, he will now allow the service to be recommenced?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gillett): The Ledbury Transport Company, Limited, exercised their right of appeal against the refusal of the Traffic Commissioners for the Southern area to grant a road service licence for a service of stage carriages between Reading and London, via Wokingham. A petition and also certain representations of the Wokingham Town Council were received and my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport in the late Government, caused an inquiry to be held in order to enable him to arrive at a decision on the appeal. After careful consideration, he decided not to make any order on the Traffic Commissioners and his decision has been notified to the parties concerned.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the late Minister refused to allow a representative of the town council on the appeal, and that their view has never been properly presented? Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, not reconsider the matter?

Mr. GILLETT: I am afraid that the question is now finished with, and that it is impossible to re-open it.

Brigadier-General BROWN: May I come and represent the case of the inhabitants of this district who are suffering very much?

Mr. GILLETT: I understand that it is now quite impossible to do anything in the matter.

Brigadier-General BROWN: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity.

ROAD DAMAGE, NAILSWORTH.

Mr. PERKINS: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the application sent to him from the urban district council of Nailsworth for a grant towards the cost of repairing the damage caused by the recent cloudburst; and whether he can come to some decision in the near future in order to enable the council to repair the damage as early as possible?

Mr. GILLETT: The application by the Nailsworth Urban District Council is receiving careful consideration and every endeavour will be made to reach an early decision.

MOTOR COACHES (SPEED).

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to ensure that traffic commissioners will not authorise any motor coach time tables which will entail the driving of any motor coach at any time on the route at a speed of over 30 miles an hour?

Mr. GILLETT: It is already laid down in Sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that the traffic commissioners shall not grant a road service licence in respect of any route if it appears to them from the particulars of the time tables which the applicants are required to furnish that the provisions of the Act relating to the speed of motor vehicles are likely to be contravened. The traffic commissioners have not yet dealt with all the applications for road service licences which have been made to them and, therefore, only a proportion of the road services have at present been brought under their review. In the circumstances my hon. Friend does not consider that action on his part is necessary.

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS (CHAIRMEN'S SALARIES).

Mr. BATEY: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether there is to be any
reduction in the salaries of the chairmen of the traffic commissioners, who are now paid £1,000 per year in addition to possessing pension rights?

Mr. GILLETT: The general question of the reduction of salaries apart from those dealt with in Command Paper No. 3952 is under consideration, and pending a decision on the general question my hon. Friend is not in a position to make any announcement as to the effect upon the salaries of the chairmen of traffic commissioners. My lion. Friend will communicate with the lion. Member when a decision has been reached. I may add that these appointments do not carry pension rights.

Mr. BATEY: When may we expect an answer to this question—this week or next week?

Mr. GILLETT: I am not certain, because I believe the whole of these cases are being reviewed, not only in connection with the Transport Ministry, but in connection with other Departments.

Mr. MARCH: Were there not a certain specified efficiency and certain abilities required of these men before the agreements were signed?

Mr. BATEY: As to pension rights, is the Minister aware that of these commissioners, in addition to £1,000 a year, one has £000 a year and another £800 a year now as a pension?

ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES, WILTSHIRE.

Mr. HURD: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the present position of the arterial road developments in Wiltshire and especially the widening of the Bath road; and what steps are being taken, in the interests of economy, to cancel or postpone these developments?

Mr. GILLETT: The position of road improvement schemes in Wiltshire is that work on the London-Exeter road has not yet been commenced. In the case of the London-Bath road, contracts have been let for two sections estimated to cost £48,775 and £54,516 respectively. Eighty per cent. of the work on the first section has been done and work on the other was recently commenced. With regard to the second part of the question, my hon. Friend is meeting representatives of the County Councils Association this after-
noon to consult with them as to expenditure on road developments generally in view of the need of economy.

Mr. HURD: Is the hon. Gentleman's Department in touch with the county council of Wiltshire in order to see whether there may not be some substantial slowing down?

Mr. GILLETT: I have no doubt that the county council or the association with which they are connected will be communicated with.

Mr. LAWTHER: Is it real economy to throw men on the Poor Law instead of giving them employment?

EARL HAIG STATUE.

Major COHEN: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will reconsider the decision arrived at by his predecessor regarding the statue of the late Lord Haig, seeing that the statue in question has been publicly condemned by Lady Haig, by the British Legion, and by public opinion generally?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The sculptor selected to execute the memorial statue was commissioned to carry out the work seven months ago and this is now in progress. In these circumstances, the First Commissioner of Works is unable to cancel the appointment of the sculptor.

Mr. COCKS: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean "execute"?

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. LAWTHER: 28.
asked the Attorney-General if he will consider in future appointments of magistrates the length of residence in the borough or comity where they hold office, as well as public service that persons have had, in order that citizens will be in a position to judge the qualifications for appointments?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): Regard has been, and will continue to be, paid to these considerations.

BRITISH ARMY (PAY).

Mr. EDE: 33.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing that the pay of officers and other ranks who joined the Forces prior to 26th October, 1925, has been reduced so that. a major loses 3.4 per cent., a second-lieutenant, after three years, 4.2 per cent., a regimental sergeant-major 14.3 per cent., a regimental quartermaster-sergeant 16.7 per cent., a company sergeant-major 15 per cent., a sergeant 14.3 per cent., a corporal 20 per cent., and a private 27.3 per cent., the Government will take steps to make these reductions conform more closely to the principle of equality of sacrifice?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The figures used in the question present a somewhat misleading picture of what will actually take place when the new rates come into force. It has been decided to apply to all officers and men the rates which already apply to all who have been commissioned or enlisted since 1925. Under this arrangement the pay of the majority of private soldiers will not be affected, and the apparent inequalities are due to the fact that the Committee who reported to the Government in 1923 on the remuneration of State servants recommended reductions in the rates of pay of junior officers, non-commissioned officers and men and not in the rates of pay of senior officers. These rates have been in force for the last six years, and there is no intention at present of revising them.

Mr. EDE: Will the lion. Gentleman consider consulting the representatives of the troops in the same way that the representatives of the senior service are being consulted at the moment about the matter of hardship, and will he arrange for a regimental sergeant-major to give, in clear and explicit language, his view of these proposed reductions, in the light of the sanctity of contracts in the soldier's service?

Mr. COOPER: As far as I am aware, no representatives of senior officers are being consulted.

Mr. EDE: I said the senior service—the Navy.

Mr. COOPER: As to that, I have no information. With regard to the hon.
Member's suggestion about consulting representatives of the non-commissioned officers, I am not sure that even, if it were adopted, it would promote discipline.

Mr. EDE: Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Prime Minister about the establishment of soldiers' councils?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I ask whether an Army Order on this matter has been issued?

Mr. COOPER: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

REORGANISATION COMMITTEE (CHAIRMAN'S ALLOWANCES).

Mr. BATEY: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines how much the chairman of the Coal Reorganisation Committee has been paid by way of subsistence allowances or expenses in addition to his salary?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Foot): The only payments made to the chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, in addition to salary, have been in respect of travelling expenses actually incurred while absent from headquarters on official business and subsistence allowances payable in connection with such absences in accordance with the Treasury Regulations governing the payment of such allowances to members of commissions and committees. The amounts thus paid up to the 31st August were £78 18s. 9d. on account of travelling and £19 4s. in respect of subsistence allowances.

Mr. BATEY: By how much is it proposed to reduce the subsistence allowance in connection with the salary of the chairman of the Reorganisation Committee?

Mr. FOOT: I do not know that any proposal to that effect has been made.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman considering this economy in the chairman's salary?

Mr. FOOT: I have nothing whatever to do, and my Department has nothing whatever to do, with the salary, Which was decided previously.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Were these allowances not supported by the votes of Socialist Ministers?

SAFETY CONFERENCES.

Mr. T. SMITH: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether it is intended to proceed with the safety conferences initiated by his predecessor?

Mr. FOOT: It is certainly my intention to continue the general policy of fostering in all sections of the mining industry discussion and the spread of knowledge on the many problems of safety. Already four conferences have been held at Newcastle-on-Tyne, Glasgow, Sheffield and Cardiff. It is my desire that conferences on similar lines shall be held in the four other inspection divisions and arrangements will be made accordingly as soon as conditions make this possible.

QUOTA SCHEMES.

Mr. T. SMITH: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines how the quota schemes under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, are proceeding?

Mr. FOOT: A report on the working of these schemes was issued by my predecessor on the 15th July in Command Paper No. 3905. Since the period covered by the report, the regulation of output has on the whole been working smoothly and some advance has been made in the arrangements for the co-ordination of minimum prices between district and district. In a review of the effect of the operation of the Central Scheme the Central Council suggest that it is still too early to bring the results attained into true perspective; they add, however, that the fact that the general level of coal prices has been maintained during a period when the level of wholesale prices of other commodities showed a decline, is no doubt to be attributed in some measure to the operation of the scheme under Part I of the Act. It is my intention later on in the year to present to Parliament a further report upon the operation of the schemes under Part I of the Act up to the end of September.

Mr. SMITH: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he is satisfied that there is no lack of supplies of coal at the Humber ports for export, particularly the port of Goole?

Mr. FOOT: There is nothing in the question on the Paper as to any particular district, and notice should be given of that question.

Mr. SMITH: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that many criticisms were made during the lifetime of the late Government, to the effect that there were insufficient supplies of coal due to the working of the quota system? I ask him whether he has had any complaints regarding the lack of supplies of coal for export at the Humber ports?

Mr. FOOT: I have no personal knowledge of any complaints. No complaints have been brought to my notice during the short time that I have been in office. I may inform the hon. Member that there is another question on the Order Paper —No. 35—which deals more fully with the working of the quota system.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask whether the opinion of the Central Council of Coalowners as to the advantages accruing to the coal industry from Part I of the Act will be communicated by him to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. FOOT: I assume that it has been communicated.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman had any complaints about the shortage of coal under the quota system in North Staffordshire?

Mr. FOOT: The difficulty in North Staffordshire does not arise from the quota system, but obviously notice ought to be given of questions relating to particular districts.

ALLOTMENTS (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).

Mr. MARION PHILLIPS: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is his intention, in view of the reductions proposed in unemployment benefit, to increase the assistance given to the National Allotments Society to enable them to help more effectively unemployed persons who may be able to mitigate the hardship due to these reductions by produce from allotments?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I much regret that it will not be possible in respect of the
ensuing season to allocate funds for the provision of allotments or the assistance of allotment holders.

Dr. PHILLIPS: Is it not the case that a grant of £80,000 was made last year and that it has not yet been exhausted; and, if that be so, will it not be used now?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is quite true that moneys were voted by Parliament for the late season, but those moneys are allocated to that season and cannot be carried over to another year. In the White Paper which has been published, it is clear that no provision can be made for dealing with this matter.

Mr. B. RILEY: Is it intended to discontinue the arrangement made by the late Minister for the assistance of allotment holders?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, it is.

Mr. MacLAREN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that a special circumstance arises here which necessitates the giving of sonic aid to the many thousands of men who, now that the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill has been dropped, have no hope of getting on to allotments this year?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is quite clear that if money could be used for this purpose a Supplementary Estimate would be required, and in the national circumstances it is quite evident that that is not possible.

LICENSING EXEMPTIONS.

Major EVANS: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the 13,264 exemptions granted during 1930 by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police under the Licensing Acts were to licensees convicted under the Acts; and the number of applications for exemption refused during the same period?

Mr. STANLEY: My right. hon. Friend regrets that to attempt to obtain figures in answer to the first part of the question would entail a prolonged search which is not at present justified. The answer to the last part of the question is 635.

FACTORY INSPECTORATE.

Major EVANS: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the number of additional appointments to the factory inspectorate made in pursuance of the recommendations of the departmental committee; and whether these include any person who does not possess a University degree or other equivalent qualification?

Mr. STANLEY: Since the Committee reported, 40 additional Inspectors have been appointed, besides 19 appointed from outside, and 16 Inspectors' assistants promoted, to fill vacancies. Of the Inspectors appointed from outside, all but two had University degrees or other equivalent qualifications in engineering, industry or science.

Major EVANS: Is not the new procedure a reversal of that instituted at the Home Office many years ago, by which preference was given to persons possessing a practical knowledge of industrial processes?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that the Committee which considered this matter in 1929 was greatly impressed by the need of factory inspectors having a wide range of knowledge, and he will no doubt be aware that facilities were suggested by way of scholarships for men of practical experience to obtain University qualifications. I may add that a considerable number of these additional inspectors who have University qualifications have had practical experience in the workshop.

CURRENCY STABILISATION (LOANS).

Dr. PHILLIPS: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what loans have been made since the beginning of 1919 to foreign Governments for the purpose of supporting the currencies of those countries; the interest payable in each case; and the country in which the loan has been raised?

Major ELLIOT: As the reply contains a large number of figures, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following is a List of the long term loans issued mainly or wholly for the purpose of currency stabilisation since 1919. Particulars are not available of banking credits which have been raised privately; and the recent Treasury operation, which was mainly in the form of a banking credit, is therefore also omitted.

Date.
Borrowing Government.
Total nominal amount of loan.
Where issued.


1923
…
…
Austria
…
650,000,000 (net) Gold Crowns 6 to 7 per cent.
Great Britain and other countries.


1924
…
…
Hungary
…
250,000,000 (net) Gold Crowns 7½ per cent.
Do.
do.


1924
…
…
Germany
…
£21,000,000 7 per cent
Do.
do.


1926
…
…
Belgium
…
$100,000,000 (net) 7 per cent.
Do.
do.


1928
…
…
Bulgaria
…
£5,000,000 (net) 7½ per cent.
Do.
do.


1928
…
…
Greece
…
£3,000,000 (net) 6 per cent.
Do.
do.


1927
…
…
Poland
…
£15,000,000 (approx.) 7 per cent.
Do.
do.


1929
…
…
Roumania
…
£16,000,000 (approx.) 7 per cent.
Do.
do.


1927
…
…
Estonia
…
£1,350,000 (net) 7 per cent.
Great Britain and U.S.A.



1931
…
…
Yugoslavia
…
Frs. 1,025,000,000 7 per cent.
Europe.

RATES OF WAGES BILL.

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the possibility of passing into law by general consent the Rates of Wages Bill, presenting proposals agreed to by representatives of employers and employed?

The PRIME MINISTER: In accordance with the general policy announced by the Government, it will not be possible, in present circumstances, to proceed with this Bill.

Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that in existing circumstances it is peculiarly important that. a Measure of this kind should be proceeded with, and will he be good enough to make inquiries to see whether the general consent of both sides of the House can be obtained to this Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be very glad to make those inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SOUTH SHIELDS.

Mr. EDE: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of men and youths, respectively, unemployed in South Shields on the latest available date; if he is aware that, although plentiful labour is available, the Pirelli Cable Company employ, in a scheme assisted by the Unemployment Grants Committee, men for three shifts of eight hours each in two days or an average
of 12 hours per day; and will he take steps to bring this practice to an end forthwith?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Milner Gray): On 7th September, 1931, there were on the register of the South Shields Employment Exchange 12,161 men aged 18 and over, and 596 boys aged 14 to 17. As regards the last part of the question, inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. EDE: Is the hon. Member aware that the acting manager of the South Shields Exchange gave me the information in the latter part of the question 10 days ago, and will he try to get this matter expedited and reasonable conditions restored?

Mr. GRAY: I will get the information as quickly as possible and communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. EDE: In addition to communicating with me, will the hon. Member communicate with the firm and get these horrible conditions stopped?

BENEFIT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the ease of a man who, when summoned on 11th September at Birmingham by his wife in respect of a separation order and of whom it was alleged that he had £3,000 invested and
had been drawing unemployment benefit at 26s. per week since January last, admitted the possession of £1,400 in investment stock, the ownership of two houses, the receipt by two sons living with him of £1 each per week in unemployment benefit and by a third son of 17s. benefit; and whether steps will be taken to prevent the payment of benefit in similar circumstances in future?

Mr. GRAY: I am having inquiries made, and as soon as these are completed I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Will you call Question No. 32. Mr. Speaker, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild):

To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will state when the proposed committee to deal with the suggested prohibition of luxury imports is to be set up.

I am rather interested in it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I called it once, and it was not asked, and the hon. Member who had it on the Paper has indicated to me that he did not want it asked.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings in Committee on National Debt and on Road Fund [Advances] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Stanley Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 195.

Division No. 470.]
AYES.
[3.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Fielden, E. B.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Flson, F. G. Cravering


Aitchlson, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Foot, Isaac


Albery, Irving James
Chapman, Sir S.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Christie, J. A.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Church, Major A. G.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Ganzoni, Sir John


Aske, Sir Robert
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Atkinson, C.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gillett, George M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Colman, N. C. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colville, Major D. J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gower, Sir Robert


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Granville, E.


Beaumont, M. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cowan, D. M.
Gray, Milner


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cranborne, Viscount
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Berry, Sir George
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Birkett, W. Norman
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Blindell, James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J, (Hertford)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Boyce, Leslie
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hammersley, S. S.


Bracken, B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hanbury, C.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harbord, A.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hartington, Marquess of


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dixey, A. C.
Haslam, Henry C.


Buchan, John
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Burton, Colonel H, W.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Butler, R. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Butt, Sir Alfred
Edge, Sir William
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Elmley, Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
England, Colonel A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Iveagh, Countess of


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Ferguson, Sir John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Lell (Camborne)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptst'ld)
Smithers, Waldron


Kindersley, Major G. M.
O'Connor, T. J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Knight, Holford
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Somerset, Thomas


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Peaks, Captain Osbert
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Penny, Sir George
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Purbrick, R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Lymington, Viscount
Pybus, Percy John
Thompson, Luke


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Thomson, Sir F.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaha[...])
Ramsbotham, H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Train, J.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Ross, Ronald D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Marjoribanks, Edward
Rothschild, J. de
Wells, Sydney R.


Markham, S. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
White, H. G.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Meller, R. J.
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Millar, J. D.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Withers, Sir John James


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Savery, S. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Scott, James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banh)


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Muirhead, A. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John



Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nathan, Major H. L.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Mr. Glassey.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Daggar, George
Hayes, John Henry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Herriotts, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hicks, Ernest George


Ammon, Charles George
Day, Harry
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Arnott, John
Devlin, Joseph
Hoffman, P. C.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dukes, C.
Hopkin, Daniel


Ayles, Walter
Duncan, Charles
Horrabin, J. F.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilsten)
Dunnico, H.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfleld)


Barr, James
Ede, James Chuter
Isaacs, George


Batey, Joseph
Edmunds, J. E.
Jenkins, Sir William


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Benson, G.
Egan, W. H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bowen, J. W.
Freeman, Peter
Kelly, W. T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gibbins, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Brooke, W.
Gibson, H. M. (Lan[...]s, Mossley)
Kinley, J.


Brothers, M.
Gossling, A. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gould, F.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Buchanan, G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Burgess, F. G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lawrence, Susan


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawson, John James


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Chater, Daniel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Leach, W.


Clarke, J. S.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Leonard, W.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hard[...]e, David (Rutherglen)
Logan, David Gilbert


Compton, Joseph
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Longden, F.


Cove, William G.
Haycock, A. W.
Lunn, William


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hayday, Arthur
McElwee, A.




McEntee, V. L.
Potts, John S.
Strauss, G. R.


McKinlay, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Sullivan, J.


MacLaren, Andrew
Raynes, W. R.
Sutton, J. E.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Richards, R.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtle, Ernest


McShane, John James
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Tillett, Ben


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Toole, Joseph


Manning, E. L.
Ritson, J.
Townend, A. E.


Mansfield, W.
R[...]meril, H. G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


March, S.
Rowson, Guy
Vaughan, David


Marcus, M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Viant, S. P.


Marley, J.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Walker, J.


Marshall, Fred
Sanders, W. S.
Wallace, H. W.


Mathers, George
Sandham, E.
Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)


Maxton, James
Sawyer, G. F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col, D. (Rhondda)


Milner, Major J.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Montague, Frederick
Sexton, Sir James
Wellock, Wilfred


Morley, Ralph
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shield, George William
West, F. R.


Mort, D. L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Westwood, Joseph


Muggeridge, H. T,
Shillaker, J. F.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Murnin, Hugh
Shinwell, E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Palin, John Henry
Sinkinson, George
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Paling, Wilfrid
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Palmer, E. T.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wise, E. F.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)



Phillips, Dr. Marton
Stamford, Thomas W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pole, Major D. G.
Stephen, Campbell
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. William Whiteley.


First Resolution read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [10TH SEPTEMBER].

Resolutions reported,

BEER (EXCISE DUTY AND DRAWBACK).

1. "That—

(a) except in the case of beer of any of the descriptions specified in Sub-section, (1) of Section two of the Finance Act, 1930, there shall, on and after the eleventh day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, be charged in addition to the duty of excise now payable in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom the following duty:



£
s.
d.


For every thirty-six gallons of worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, a duty of
1
11
0

(b) in addition to the drawbacks of excise now payable there shall be allowed on the exportation from the United Kingdom as merchandise, or for use as ships' stores, of beer on which it is shown that the increased duty aforesaid has been paid, the following drawback:



£
s.
d.


For every thirty-six gallons of beer of an original gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, a drawback of
1
11
0


and so, as to both duty and drawback, in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

BEER (CUSTOMS DUTY AND DRAWBACK).

2. "That—

(a) except in the case of beer of the descriptions specified in Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Finance Act, 1930, there shall, on and after the eleventh day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, be charged in addition to the ditties of customs now payable on beer imported into the United Kingdom the following duty:



£
s.
d.


For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof were before fermentation of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, a duty of
1
11
0

(b) in addition to the customs drawbacks now payable there shall be allowed on the exportation, or shipment for use as stores, of beer imported into the United
Kingdom on which it is shown that the increased duty aforesaid has been paid, the following drawback:



£
s.
d.


For every thirty-six gallons of beer of an original gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, the drawback of
1
11
0


and so, as to both duty and drawback, in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

TOBACCO (CUSTOMS DUTY).

3. "That in lieu of the full duties of customs now chargeable on tobacco imported into the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the eleventh day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, be charged the following duties, that is to say:



s.
d.


Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.:—




Containing 10 lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof—




Unstripped the lb.
9
6


Stripped the lb.
9
6½


Containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof—




Unstripped the lb.
10
6


Stripped the lb.
10
6½


Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.:—




Cigars the lb.
18
1


Cigarettes the lb.
14
7


Cavendish or Negrohead the lb.
13
9


Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond the lb.
12
0


Other manufactured tobacco the lb.
12
0


Snuff—




Containing more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof the lb.
11
4


Containing not more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof the lb.
13
9


and so in proportion for any less quantity.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

TOBACCO (EXCISE DUTY).

4. "That in lieu of the duties of excise now chargeable on tobacco grown in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the eleventh day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, be charged the following duties, that is to say:



s.
d.


Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.:—




Containing 10 lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof the lb.
7
3½


Containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof the lb.
8
0⅞


Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.:—




Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond the lb.
9
4⅞


and so in proportion for any less quantity.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

TOBACCO (DRAWBACK).

5. "That as respects tobacco on which the increased duties proposed by the foregoing Resolutions have been paid, drawback shall be allowed at the rates set out in the following table instead of at the rates set out in Part III of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1927:


Table.



Rate per pound.


Description of tobacco.
In respect of tobacco on which full customs duty has been paid.
It respect of tobacco on which customs duty at a preferential rate or excise duty has been paid



s.
d.
s.
d.


Cigars
10
9
8
5


Cigarettes
10
6
8
2


Cut, roll, cake or other manufactured tobacco.
10
3
8
0


Snuff (not being offal snuff).
10
0
7
10


Stalks, shorts, or other refuse of tobacco, including offal snuff.
9
9
7
7

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

HYDROCARBON OILS (CUSTOMS DUTY).

6. "That as from 6 o'clock in the evening on the tenth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, the customs duty on hydrocarbon oils shall be at the rate per gallon of eightpence instead of sixpence, and the rebate to be allowed on the delivery for home consumption of hydrocarbon oils, other than light oils, shall be at the rate per gallon of eightpence instead of sixpence.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

HYDROCARBON OILS (PROHIBITION OF MIXING).

7. "That it is expedient to prohibit the mixing of hydrocarbon oils in respect of which a rebate of duty has been allowed under sub-section (3) of section two of the Finance Act, 1928, with any light oils within the meaning of the said sub-section, except by persons who hold a licence for the purpose and have paid the duty which would have been paid if the rebate had not been allowed."

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

8. "That

(a) as from the ninth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, entertainments duty shall be charged at the following rates:—

Where the payment for admission, excluding the amount of duty—
Does not exceed 2½d.—One halfpenny.
Exceeds 2½d. and does not exceed 5d.—One penny.
Exceeds 5d. and does not exceed 7½d.—Three halfpence.
Exceeds 7½d. and does not exceed 10d.— Two pence.
Exceeds 10d. and does not exceed 1s. 0½2.d.—Two pence halfpenny.
Exceeds 1s. 0½d. and does not exceed 1s. 3d.—Three pence.
Exceeds 1s. 3d.—Three pence for the first 1s. 3d. and one penny for every 5d. or part of 5d. over 1s. 3d.
(b) entertainments duty shall not be charged on payments for admission to an entertainment if the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that the entertainment is provided only for children, that no person is admitted other than children and persons in charge of children, and that the charge for admission for each person does not exceed two pence.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

Orders of the Day — INCOME TAX.

HIGHER RATES OF TAX FOR 1930–31.

9. "That—

(a) section six of the Finance Act, 1931, which determines the higher rates of Income Tax for 1930–31, shall have effect as if each of the amounts specified in the second column of the Table contained in that section were increased by ten per cent.; and
(b) such amendments shall be made in the Income Tax Acts as are consequential on the said increase."

RELIEFS.

10. "That—

(a) the reliefs by way of deductions from tax for which provision is made by section forty of the Finance Act, 1927, and the reliefs in relation to life assurance and other matters provided by section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1918, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall be varied as Parliament may provide by any Bill of the present Session relating to Finance; and
(b) such amendments shall be made in the Income Tax Acts as are consequential on any variations which may be made in the reliefs aforesaid."

PROFITS ON CONVERSION OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.

11. "That it is expedient to make provision as to the Income Tax payable in connection with the conversion of United Kingdom Government Securities owned by persons carrying on any trade which consists wholly or partly in dealing in securities."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I desire to offer a few remarks in regard to this vicious and immoral tax on beer. I use those words advisedly. Prior to 1913 or 1914 the tax on a barrel of beer of 1,055 gravity was 7s. 9d.; to-day it will be £6 14s., but there is a rebate which brings it down to £5 14s. The tax proposed to-day is 15 times greater than it was pre-War. There is no proposal in the Budget to put a further tax on spirituous liquors or on wine, that is, there is no proposal to tax the drink of the people who can afford to pay it. The burden is put on the workers' beverage, which is often so mild that I can find ginger beer which is stronger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in outlining this tax, made it quite distinct that the consumer was to be charged every penny of the tax that was to be imposed. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who claims to be the friend of the poor, had consulted some of the Members on this side of the House we could have given him some information, and he might have done better for the nation and better for the men who take a glass of beer.
This tax is being imposed in the name of equality of sacrifice! We talked about equality of sacrifice in 1914. Millions of men mortgaged their lives and the lives of their wives and families, and to-day are suffering because of that inequality
of sacrifice. How many of them are receiving unemployment benefit to-day because of that sacrifice? Everybody knows that the present tax is far beyond what the worker ought to be called upon to pay. I say emphatically that the people who have invested their money in breweries are getting 10 per cent. interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he cannot compel these people to give up a portion of that money, but surely some way can be found of dealing with this difficulty. It is a scandal that such taxes as those which have been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should fall upon the poor people, who are already being severely penalised under this Budget.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I intervene in this Debate to offer a warning, and it is that I believe there is a grave danger in this proposal, although I shall vote for it, and for every proposal contained in the Budget. I do so, however, with great fear in this case, because anyone who watches the statistics of the consumption of beer in this country must realise that the proposal we are discussing will seriously affect the national revenue in the next three or four years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must realise that there will be a great decrease in the consumption of beer as a direct result of this proposal, and in that way you are going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about the revenue of the future will realise that great danger.
My next point is that never in the history of this country have the cereal farmers been in such a parlous plight, facing ruin as they are to-day. Last year the only crop in the Eastern counties which produced a profit was the barley crop, and inevitably the proposal we are now discussing is going to cause a very great decrease in the consumption of British barley. The demand for it will be cut down by 20 per cent. I want the House to realise these facts, and I can give my vote for this proposal only on the understanding that it is to be a temporary measure in order to help the country over its terrible difficulties. This is a proposal which is likely, in the long run, to decrease the revenue rather than to increase it. The hon. Member for
Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) referred to the sacrifices which the people of this country made during the War between 1914 and 1918. I would like to remind the hon. Member that the position of the country to-day is somewhat similar, and the perils with which we are faced are just as great. When we remember that 7,000,000 of our countrymen during that time were prepared to make a 100 per cent. sacrifice, including their lives, I hope that in this instance we shall show that we are prepared to do our share to meet the present crisis.

Mr. R. MORRISON: There is a way by which the consumption of beer need not be reduced, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would still get the full amount of the tax. It is that the brewers should make the sacrifice. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget, I noticed that one of the large brewery organisations hastily called a meeting and decided, in regard to this tax, that, so far as sacrifice was concerned, they were not going to have any, and they decided to put the tax on the consumers. The point I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is that I think the time has come when the brewers might do something in the way of sacrifice, instead of passing the burden of this tax on to the consumer. Only a week ago I obtained some information upon this subject to which I should like to draw attention. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state the aggregate profits of the brewing companies in the United Kingdom for the year 1913–14, and the latest year for which complete figures were available, and in reply to that question I was furnished with copies of replies on the same subject which were given to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) on 5th May, 1930, and on 17th February last. Those figures show that the estimated profits of brewing concerns in the United Kingdom for 1913–14 were £9,971,000, and that for 1929–30 the profits were estimated at £25,000,000.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that in some years the largest brewers made no profit at all?

Mr. MORRISON: In 1913–14 the profits of the brewers were £9,971,000; in 1914–15, £11,680,000; 1915–16, £13,181,000; 1916–17, £4,220,000; 1917–18, £24,394,000; 1918–19, £30,190,000; 1919–20, £32,390,000; 1920–21, £29,000,000; and 1921–22, £19,750,000. I have already stated that the profits in 1929–30 were estimated at £25,000,000. In these circumstances is it reasonable that a body of men who claim to be the greatest patriots in the country should show such indecent haste to pass the whole of this burden on to the consumer? On this subject I would like to give a quotation from the "Times" of 10th August this year:
The ordinary general meeting of Arthur Guinness, Son and Company, Limited, was held on Saturday last at River Plate House, Finsbury Circus, London, E.C.
The Earl of 1veagh, C.B., C.M.G. (Chairman of the company) presided.
The Secretary (Mr. J. W. Smith) having read the notice convening the meeting, and the report of the auditors,
The chairman said: 'Ladies and Gentlemen, The report, and statement of accounts have been in your hands for some days, and with your permission we will take them as read. (Agreed).
The profit for the year amounts to £2,380,356, to which must be added £807,436 brought forward from last year, giving a total of £3,187,792.'
Hon. Members must have seen on the hoardings advertisements announcing that "Guinness is good for you." I do not know whether that is so or not, but, at any rate, it seems to be good for the shareholders. We have heard a good deal about equality of sacrifice, and I suggest that this is a great opportunity for the brewers to show an example to the unemployed, to the sailors in the Navy, and others by shouldering this burden themselves, instead of walking away with a profit of £25,000,000 a year.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have always been opposed to taxation imposed in this way, because it is one of the worst forms of taxation. This tax will have to be paid by the poor working people who are being cut into so deeply by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues. The imposition of taxation of this kind shows the callousness of the Government, and particularly of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has often identified himself with the temperance movement. Already the unemployed
man, who has been cut into so viciously and callously by the Budget proposals, is to have this further taxation imposed upon him. To me, the whole thing is an evidence of this jazz political world.
The figures that were given by the hon. Gentleman just now cannot fail to impress those who are seriously studying the financial situation. There has been a great cry about wastage. Here you find wastage going on, and, at the back of the wastage, you have the accumulation of wealth by the very forces which, metaphorically speaking, have gripped by the throat the two special representatives of the present Government who formerly represented the Labour Government. They are practically throttling the professed leaders of the Labour movement, and now they come along with this further deep cut upon those who are suffering. It is a serious anomaly. To impose taxation on a line of business that involves wastage all along, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is evidence of abject cowardice on the part of men who are specifically identified with the temperance movement, but have never had the courage of a mouse to tackle the problem in the way that it ought to be tackled.
The hon. Member who has spoken as a supporter of those workers who believe in having drink is following a logical line, and the whole mass of the Labour party who are agreeable to the supply of the beverage ought, logically, to be supporting him. They do not do so. They profess condemnation of the system, and disagree largely with its results, but, when it comes to the practical push of the business, they have fallen into line with those who think it would be well to take something out of this wealthy concern. But it is not coming out of the wealthy concern. Already those forces which are so strongly entrenched behind the temperance leader who is Chancellor of the Exchequer—those liquor forces whose names are familiar to us—say, "Let us grab all we can, and at the same time throttle the very customers who patronise our business." [Interruption.] I have read the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman who is now sitting there smiling. In days gone by he put all the pretended earnestness into it, and those who were supporting him were not laughing, but were taking him to be in
earnest. Now I see him in reality in his proper place, backing the formidable forces, financial and otherwise, which are prepared practically to bludgeon the suffering poor of the country.
When it is a question of the Navy, it is said that that is a question of home defence, and quite another matter; that that is where there is danger to the financial interests; that it is insurance; that these men must be steadied, that they must be kept contented. Probably we shall see the police supported in the same fashion—[Interruption.] The feeling is coming up very strongly, But the poor, suffering, unemployed man, who has no one to look to, has been very nearly lost sight of in the whole slump of the Labour party. Very nearly the whole concern was swallowed up in the formidable forces that are now on the other side. It is God's mercy that His Majesty has an Opposition.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Resolution deals with beer, and nothing else but beer.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is perfectly true, but sometimes, as we can understand beer leads to a divergence. I bow at once to your ruling, but I am trying to get in what I have been boiling over to say. I am not with those who impose taxation on this product at all. I stand, and the hon. Member, if he is against this taxation, ought to stand, for the removal of the thing itself. That I could conceive to be a logical position. It is my own opinion, and it is on that ground that I am expressing my views here today.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I have been looking for some tax among those proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which has not been suggested by the late Cabinet, and I should rather like to know whether this tax on beer was included in the proposals of the late Cabinet before they ran away. This bludgeoning of the unemployed, this throttling of unemployed poor people, seems to have been contemplated by the late Government, and the boiling over which we saw so well exemplified in the speech of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson.) surely ought to be addressed to Members on his own Front Bench. If we are following in the footsteps of the late Govern-
ment, we may be following a bad example, but that, I suggest is the line that hon. Gentlemen opposite should take, instead of making unfair accusations against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, after all, has to balance his Budget, from which the late Government ran away.
I am naturally anxious, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), about the agricultural situation. A tax upon beer is a tax upon barley, of which some of the finest in the country is grown in my constituency, and, therefore, while I support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this emergency, I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in regretting anything which even indirectly puts a possible burden upon agriculture. It is natural that people who drink beer should desire that its price should be lower, but I hope that the agricultural situation, which has been submerged in this morass into which the country has been plunged by the late Government, will not be altogether lost sight of, and that the best possible means may be quickly found to help that industry. I propose to support the Government.

Mr. McSHANE: I rise to oppose this tax on beer. It is very significant that the only two speeches which so far have been delivered from the Government side have been delivered against this tax, and I should like to know whether the two hon. Members who have spoken in opposition to it are going to oppose it by their votes. I do not think that there is much fear of that, but it is poetic justice that the Conservative party to-day should be forced willy-nilly into the Lobby in order to put an extra penny upon beer, particularly when I remember that two years ago, at their party conference, one of the Tory speakers said that the best way to sweep the country at election time would be to reduce the Beer Duty by 1d. or 2d. I am not either a prohibitionist or a publican, but I take my stand on this general and broad principle, that, as far as I can in this House, I will prevent the putting of any further burdens of any kind whatever upon the working class. If this were an isolated tax, one could understand it, but as a matter of fact the whole of the working classes will now be affected by the new
Income Tax proposals, by the new Entertainment Duty proposals, and by the tax on tobacco, and the tax on petrol will indirectly affect them, while their wages are going to be reduced, because that is the main purpose of this Government, as expressed by Dr. Sprague. Taking all these things together, there is going to be placed on the working class an abominable and most grave burden, and I propose to do what I can to-day, and on every other day that follows, to lighten that burden.
I confess that I have not the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) on this subject. Frankly, I would like to see less drinking of beer, and I think it is not without significance that 1d. per pint brings in £10,000,000 per annum. I regret it. I wish that less money were spent on beer and a good deal more on bread. If that were so it would be better for this country. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring reminds me of the man who said that, just as the strength of a chain lies in its weakest link, so the strength of a nation lies in its weakest drink. As I have said, this tax is not an isolated one, but one which, in conjunction with the others, will press unduly severely upon the masses of the population. I consider that there ought not to have been any additional taxation at all. I should have opposed any and every specific tax that was proposed, and for this reason. I do not for a moment wish to get outside the Debate, but the question of finance should not worry the country at all. If the international financiers cannot solve the question of how to distribute the wealth that is produced, it is not for us to make the conditions of the people worse, not only in this country but in every other country. Therefore, the Socialist view should be rigorously and vigorously, everywhere, to prevent the putting of any further burdens whatever upon the working classes, and to compel the other people to find a way out. I oppose the Resolution.

Captain RONALD HENDERSON: The House always listens with interest to the rare but very sincere speeches of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). To-day he used a peculiarly happy expression when he referred to this "jazz political world," and, if
I may say so without any disrespect, I think the same term might be applied to the Opposition. We have the amazing spectacle of one who, I believe, is the only prohibitionist Member of the House, rising to oppose this tax on beer. He deplores the amount which is spent in this country on beer, and yet, apparently, he deplores the imposition of any restriction upon that wastage.
I want to endorse the point of view which was put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) as to the effect that this tax will have on the revenue. I would remind the House that the consumption of beer in this country has fallen from, roughly speaking, 36,000,000 standard barrels pre-War, to less than 18,000,000 standard barrels. Many of us regard that fall without any great feelings of discontent, and probably much has been gained in that way, but, on the other hand, we have to look at the question from the revenue point of view, and, undoubtedly, this further impost will gradually diminish the revenue producing qualities of this Duty in the future. It will also, as has been pointed out already, deal a grave blow at the farmer. The suggestion has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) that luxury imports should be prohibited, and the Cabinet are committed to considering that question. May I make this suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The importation of foreign malting barley might quite fairly be treated as a luxury import, and the Chancellor would be able to get. the revenue he expects from the impost, and would at the same time avoid hitting the hardly pressed agricultural industry, and especially the barley growing part of it. In the hope that that suggestion may be considered, I support the Resolution.

Mr. COCKS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has paid a very real tribute to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). We all admire the hon. Member's sincerity and we admire his precepts, even if we do not follow his practice. We had a very important. speech from the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who represents a constituency which, I understand, is composed mostly of maiden aunts and elderly gentlemen.

Sir H. CROFT: Of the 70,000 electors who returned me, the vast majority are working men.

Mr. COCKS: I understand that there is a certain proportion. of elderly people, who will pass into the place where beer may be desired but will not be available. The hon. Baronet said that he and. his party were making a great sacrifice in voting for this duty. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. The other day he quoted Swinburne, who has always been criticised as being a master of sonorous nonsense. I wish to quote from a poem on beer:
Beer is the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think.
Therefore, it must be a great sacrifice for the Conservative party to agree to a tax of this sort. What is the reason for this increased taxation of beer, which must really hurt hon. Members more than they care to think about? We know the origin of this Government. We know that, although beer is the national drink of England, although it is a thing that has made England, in the words of the poet, "what it is," there are other countries which do not enjoy the privilege of beer. We had a gentleman on the long-range telephone from New York who is suffering under prohibition ordering the British public to pay more for their beer. That is a very disgraceful position. I do not think this country has ever been in a position like that. Not only are the unemployed to have their dole cut down at the bidding of America, but their beer as well.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Do you believe what you are saying?

Mr. COCKS: I believe beer—

Mr. LEIF JONES: I mean about the telephone.

Mr. COCKS: I am giving an analogy. As the result of these orders, we have a coalition Government. There are some people who believe in beer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, apparently, does not believe in anything that adds to human happiness. We have a coalition on this question between bootleggers and prohibitionists. We stand for Labour and Liberty. I think Labour and Liberty will carry the country at the
next election against this disgusting combination of bootleggers and prohibitionists.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I am tempted to intervene by the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken. He quoted from a poem of Mr. Housman derogatory to beer. I should also like to give him a quotation from Mr. Housman in which he says:
The troubles of our proud and angry dust
Are from eternity, and shall not fail.
Bear them we can, and if we can we must;
Shoulder the sky, my lad, and drink your ale.
That seems to me a better and more apposite quotation than that which the hon. Member made. I am not going to pretend for a moment that we on this side of the House think beer is, on the whole, a bad drink. I think that it is a good drink and that, taken in moderation, its effects are entirely beneficial to the people of the country. I regret profoundly that the necessities of the financial situation cause us to have to put on this extra impost. The hon. Member opposite said that the Labour party stands for, I think, beer and liberty.

Mr. COCKS: Labour and liberty.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I never heard such nonsense as when we listened to the quite inexplicable speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), who stands as a prohibitionist and yet supports the party opposite, all of whom complain that we are making beer more expensive to the working people. The only reason why we support what we must regard as an infliction upon the general community by the addition of this tax is that, while beer may be regarded, as we regard it, as a desirable commodity, no one can say it is a necessity, and in the very grave financial crisis in which we find ourselves there is a substantial additional revenue to be derived from beer. For that reason alone, we consider it our duty, not because we like it—and the same argument applies to many Resolutions for which we shall vote to-night—and it ought to be the duty of hon. Members opposite to support this taxation proposal in the Lobby.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): It is recognised on all sides of the House, but more, I think, on this side than on that, what a heavy burden these additional taxes inevitably are both upon the consumer and upon the various industries which contribute to them. Among the industries that contribute to the brewing of beer, the agricultural industry is a very important one. We fully sympathise with the point that was made with great justice by the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) that the contraction in the barley acreage which might result from the contraction in the consumption of beer is undoubtedly a factor which would be an additional burden to the troubles under which agriculture is labouring. But what the Chancellor must get, and what this House must get, from the Resolutions that are under review, is revenue. This is one of the great revenue-producing duties of the British Budget and from this revenue duty my right hon. Friend is obtaining £1,500,000 this year and £10,000,000 in a full year. That alone is the justification for the impost, which we on this side of the House must regard as a grave impost upon the ordinary population.
We do not agree at all with the extraordinarily conflicting arguments which have been brought forward from the other side, and we find the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) thumping the drum in defence of beer. If he had not swallowed the principles he would make us suspect he had been swallowing something else. The idea of the hon. Member, who stands out for the most rigorous curtailment of the liberty of the subject that it is possible for any of us to conceive, standing up for what he calls the liberty of the subject and being picked up by the lion. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks)—I enjoyed his quotation from Housman more than the rest of his speech—the hon. Member for Broxtowe standing up for liberty and the hon. Member for Dundee standing up for prohibition and cheaper beer seem to me as astonishing—

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: No beer at all.

Major ELLIOT: I think, on the whole, the workers of the country would prefer
that beer should be a little dearer, but that they should be able to get it, rather than the hon. Member should say, "In yonder secluded vault is a vast vessel of the most delectable beer, which could be sold at the cheapest possible rate if there was no taxation on it, but that vault is sealed and padlocked." I feel that the House, in fact, has accepted the proposal that the Chancellor has laid before it. There are two points of criticism that ought to be met. The first is that this has been passed on by the brewing firms to the consumer. I ask the House to remember that only last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer obtained £3,000,000 of revenue, not a penny of which was passed on by the industry to the public, and it was impossible for the industry to bear out of its own pocket a further contribution on this occasion.

Mr. R. MORRISON: In spite of that, the firm of Guinness paid a dividend of 30 per cent.

Major ELLIOT: The firm of Guinness, as far as I know, has important relations with breweries which are not in this country at all. The fact remains that the industry last year was drawn upon for a substantial contribution which it did not pass on to the public, and that is the reason why it is not possible for it again to take so substantial an impost as this which the Chancellor has had to place on the shoulders of the brewery firms and the beer consuming public. Then he was asked, "Why not further taxations on wines?" Again, the Chancellor is not seeking to impose taxation but to raise revenue. It was found in the past that, when a duty on wines was raised, a very serious contraction in the revenue immediately took place and duty was remitted, not because there was a campaign to drink more wine, but simply because the Chancellor of the day desired to obtain the maximum possible revenue. He has to balance the height of the tax with the amount which he hopes to get from it. These are the only reasons why he has brought forward this Resolution, and I hope that it will be possible for the House to let us have it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have heard a great deal lately, and shall hear a great deal more, about the effects
of certain duties on imports. I understand there is a fear that, if the duty on wines is increased, the consumption will fall off, and less will come in. As most of the wine comes from abroad, has the Treasury considered this point from the point of view of the balance of trade? We are told that, if an extra duty is put on champagne, port and other wines, people will not buy them.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Resolution deals with beer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to stray from that except that the matter was raised from the point of view of the whole question of the taxation of alcoholic drinks. We are not altogether independent of French opinion, and especially French financial opinion.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. HASLAM: Before we part with this subject. I wish to refer to the effect of this tax upon the poorest paid class of workers in this country—the agricultural labourers. [Interruption.] Yes, I am going to vote because additional taxation has become necessary owing to the action of the party opposite in running away in face of a national danger. I am going to support the Chancellor in the tax, but that is no reason why we should not make ourselves fully aware of the tax. I have on more than one occasion in Budget Debates drawn the attention of the House to the fact that our system of indirect taxation bears much more hardly upon the lower paid workers of the country than upon the higher paid workers. We tax beer and tobacco, and it is a flat rate paid equally by all consumers. Therefore this tax bears very much more hardly upon the agricultural worker than upon the higher paid workers of the cities and town.
There is another point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. Beer to the agricultural worker is generally considered, owing to his hard manual work, more of a necessity than it is to those engaged in more sedentary occupations. In the amenities of our country life the occasional visit to the village inn forms a very important recreation and amenity to the agricultural worker. The increase of this tax will undoubtedly deprive many an agricultural worker of that amenity, and will make
his life more hard and onerous than it is already. Having noted that the tax bears more hardly upon the agricultural worker and the lower paid members of the working class than upon the better paid workers, I desire, as I have on previous Budgets, to enter my protest against the

principle of this taxation. There is absolutely no reason why on this occasion I should not register my protest.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 143.

Division No. 471.]
AYES.
[5.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Capt, H, C.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Albery, Irving James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Aske, Sir Robert
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, s.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)


Atholl, Duchess of
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Atkinson, C.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Dixey, A. C.
Knight, Holford


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Balniel, Lord
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Beaumont, M. W.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Eden, Captain Anthony
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Edge, Sir William
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Berry, Sir George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Elmley, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dear-man
England, Colonel A.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Birkett, W. Norman
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Blinded, James
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lymington, Viscount


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Ferguson, Sir John
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Boyce, Leslie
Fleiden, E. B.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bracken, B.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macquisten, F. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fremantle, Lleut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mailland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Buchan, John
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Butler, R. A.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Markham, S. F.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gillett, George M.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Campbell, E. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meller, R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gower, Sir Robert
Millar, J. D.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Granville, E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gray, Milner
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A. (Blrm., W.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Muirhead, A. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nall-Caln, A. R. N.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Christie, J. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Church, Major A. G.
Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
O'Connor, T. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hammersley, S. S.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hanbury, C.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Colfox, Major William Philip
Harbord, A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, W. R. D.


Colville, Major D. J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Purbrick, R.


Cowan, D. M.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pybus, Percy John


Cranborne, Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsbotham, H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Bel[...]st)
Train, J.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Smithers, Waldron
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Somerset, Thomas
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ross, Ronald D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rothschild, J. de
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wells, Sydney R.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
White, H. G.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, F[...]rnham)
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Withers, Sir John James


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Savery, S. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Scott, James
Thomas. Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Wood, Major McKenzic (Band)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thompson, Luke
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Thomson, Sir F.



Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Sir George Penny and Mr. Glassey.


NOES.


Alpass, J. H.
Hoffman, P. C.
Ritson, J.


Ayles, Walter
Hollins, A.
Romeril, H. G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hopkin, Daniel
Rowson, Guy


Batey, Joseph
Isaacs, George
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jenkins, Sir William
Sandham, E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sawyer, G. F,


Bowen, J. w.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sexton, Sir James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brooke, W.
Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
Kinley, J.
Shillaker, J. F.


Burgess, F. G.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. B Elland)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Simmons, C. J.


Cape, Thomas
Lawr[...]e, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sinkinson, George


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawson, John James
Sitch, Charles H.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Chater, Daniel
Leach, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Cove, William G.
Logan, David Gilbert
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Longden, F.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
McElwee, A.
Strauss, G. R.


Devlin, Joseph
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sutton, J. E.


Dukes, C.
McShane, John James
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Duncan, Charles
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dunnico, H.
Manning, E. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Ede, James Chuter
Mansfield, W.
Tillett, Ben


Edmunds, J. E.
March, S.
Toole, Joseph


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marcus, M.
Tout, W. J.


Egan, W. H.
Marshall, Fred
Vaughan, David


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mathers, George
Walker, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Wallace, H. W.


Gill, T. H.
Messer, Fred
Watkins, F. C.


Gossling, A. G.
Milner, Major J.
Watson. W. M. (Dunferm[...]ne)


Gould, F.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morley, Ralph
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mort, D. L.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Groves, Thomas E.
Muggerldge, H. T.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, Capt. W, G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Haycock, A. W.
Pole, Ma|or D. G.
Wilson, R, J. (Jarrow)


Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.



Hayes, John Henry
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Herrlotts, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Mr. Robert Richardson and Mr.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Raynes, W. R.
Cocks.


Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we not to have an explanation from the Minister?

Major ELLIOT: This is a Resolution which prevents the foreigner from having
any advantage over the British producer. It is generally agreed that there should be fair play on both sides. Therefore, as we have raised the duty on home produced beer, this Resolution raises the duty on foreign produced beer to a corresponding extent.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I ask why the Government do not seek to keep out all foreign beer?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): That question does not arise.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to raise one point, and I hope that in discussing tobacco we shall not have the hilarity that we always have had in regard to beer. They are both very serious questions. I hope the Financial Secretary will set a good example by treating the question of tobacco seriously. I understand that the cigarette manufacturers are not passing this increase of duty on to the consumer of cigarettes. I should like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any kind of understanding and, if so, whether there was any understanding about the size, length or quality of the cigarettes. My second question is this. Have any representations been made in regard to the price of pipe tobacco, the duty on which, it will be agreed, will particularly hit the poorest of the working classes. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend makes a remark about the pipe of the Lord President of the Council, but there could be no equality of sacrifice in putting one halfpenny an ounce on his pipe tobacco. Take the case of the agricultural labourer. We have heard much about him from the hon. Member opposite. He paid great lip service to the poverty of the agricultural labourer. He told us how his heart bled for him, but he had not the courage to come into our Lobby.

Mr. HASLAM: I have the courage—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! What happened on the last Resolution does not arise on this.

Mr. HASLAM: On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member has cast reflections upon my courage, and I very much resent it. I should like to know if I shall have any opportunity of repudiating the charge which he has made.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I say that I congratulate the hon. Member on his courage in going against his convictions. The agricultural labourer, a very poorly paid man, the unemployed worker, who is unemployed through no fault of his own, soldiers, sailors and others who have had their pay cut, are pipe-smoking people.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: The sailor does not pay the Duty.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: He does. That is where the hon. and gallant Member is misinformed. I believe the seamen do pay the Duty. That class of people are the pipe smokers, and it is most unfortunate that the increase in the Duty is being passed on to them by very wealthy corporations, the great tobacco trusts, who, in this time of industrial depression, have kept up their heavy profits and dividends. In some cases they have almost a monopolistic control of large sections of the industry. May I ask whether there has been an understanding in regard to pipe tobacco. Was there any understanding in regard to cigarette tobacco, or why was the wind tempered to the cigarette smoker and not to the pipe smoker?

Mr. McSHANE: I oppose this Resolution on the same principle that I opposed the tax on beer. We have heard a great deal about equality of sacrifice. It reminds me of the story of a man who put a ladder into a very deep well. On the top of the ladder there was a man who had £10,000 a year. On the next step there was a man with £9,000 a year, and on the next lower step a man with £8,000 a year. The scale of income descended right down the ladder to the bottom. On the last rung there was an unemployed man, whose lips were touching the water. The gentleman at the top of the ladder, with his £10,000 a year, said: "Comrades, we must all make a common sacrifice. We must all go down a rung." Hon. Members can imagine the look on the face of the unemployed man at the bottom of the ladder, up to whose lips the water had risen, when he was asked
to go down another rung. That is a correct description of the whole of the proposals in the Budget in regard to taxation.
The working man will he particularly hit. The man who smokes his cutty pipe will be severely hit. When one considers that his wages have been reduced, that the Entertainments Duty has been increased, that the Income Tax will hit him, and we consider also the indirect taxation, his position is worsened when he has to pay a tax on tobacco. I say without hesitation that the conditions of the working classes are absolutely intolerable, without any further burdens. These burdens might well have been place elsewhere. This particular burden is one that ought to be opposed by our party. It is a remarkable coincidence that the taxation of tobacco originally came from the United States, and it is also a singular coincidence that the cause of this taxation that we are now discussing was ordered by bankers of the United States.

Sir F. HALL: I have listened since last. Tuesday to all sorts of speeches, and I have not wasted the time of the House. I am surprised at the attitude of hon. Members opposite. I notice that some of the Members of the late Government took the precaution not to go into the Division Lobby on the last Amendment. I assume that in regard to the present proposals, considering that these proposals would have come from the Socialist Government and would have been accepted by every hon. Member opposite—[HON.:MEMBERS: "No!"] It is all very well for hon. Members to say "no," irrespective of the position in the country. I am sorry that this additional tax has had to be put upon tobacco. I remember that, seven or eight years ago, when an additional tax was placed upon tobacco, it was put on one year and taken off the next, because of the reduced amount of revenue obtained in consequence of the smaller consumption of tobacco. Surely, hon. Members opposite do not think that we like these taxes. We do not. We are swallowing these taxes simply and solely for the reason that we are not going to run away from any proposals brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are going to do our part as far as we can to help him once snore to build up the finances of this country in a proper way.
Of course, other suggestions might have been made for raising the revenue. Hon. Members on this side deplore the necessity for this increased taxation, but we are going into the Lobby, certainly I am, to support whatever proposals the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought forward.

Mr. LOGAN: I am rather surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found so many friends on the opposite side. I remember the right hon. Gentleman talking about the coming of the Christmas season, with its clowns and pantaloons. To-day, we find a great deal of sympathy expressed by hon. Members opposite in regard to the electorate. They would not burden the people with any great hardship. They wish to make their lot better, but we find that we cannot get anything like justice for the working classes. In regard to the proposed taxation, one wonders what really has been the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other day he insulted us by saying that he had never seen the Members of this party until he viewed us from that side of the House, and looked us in the face. I am wondering whether he looked the present proposition in the face, or whether he spoke to the manufacturers in order to get the true position.
I cannot imagine why one who has professed such great love for the poor, but who has lost it since he crossed the Floor of the House, should have decided that cigarettes and tobacco were to be the subject of taxation. One would have thought, knowing the puritanical point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would certainly have said that luxuries should be taxed. If you are going to impose taxes on the people it will certainly be admitted by every hon. Member in the House that you should impose taxes on those luxuries which are not necessities of life. My memory goes back to a few short days ago when a late Prime Minister of a Labour Government reminded us that in the matter of the reduction of certain benefits to the poor all that was necessary was for us to tighten our belts in the present financial position of the country. Are hon. Members aware that so far as tobacco is concerned it may he regarded as part of the food of many of the poorer workers. I know many who have smoked a bit of
tobacco in the bottom of their pipe and gone without a meal. You say that this must be paid for by someone. When the manufacturer complains he gets the benefit of de-rating, the industry gets a subsidy. Now these people who got a subsidy, because, as it was said, they were passing through very hard times and found it difficult to make ends meet, will pass on this extra taxation in the form of smaller cigarettes or they will charge a higher price for them. In regard to tobacco there will certainly be an increase. This is not a luxury like a Corona cigar; it is a necessity for some of the poorest of our people.
Does this Coalition consider that they have the right to exact this charge from the poorest of the poor? I represent a great dock-side constituency, a population which to-day ought to have some measure of justice meted out to it by a House of Commons. But there is no sympathy or soul in this damnable Coalition, which to-day is exacting these taxes from our people. There is no need for me to mince my words. I would fight anyone who dares to meet me in the Scotland Division, from the Prime Minister downwards. I am prepared to say in this House of Commons what I say in the Scotland Division. This is a game of bluff. The Government are exerting their position as an unholy Coalition to exact from the masses of the people taxes which the electorate would never give them the power to exact. You have no right to impose these taxes on the poor. You would never get a mandate from the country, and if you had the courage of your convictions you would go and face the country. We have had a lot of bamboozling and codology in the last few days as to whether the Government will or will not face the country. The impertinence of any Coalition making these exactions from the people, when they have never had a mandate to do so, is beyond the comprehension of any right thinking man.
This Coalition, this co-operation, call it whatever you like, has no mandate whatever to bring forward in this House any such proposition as this. You talk about moral rights and contractual obligations with all the hyprocrisy which this unhappy combination can bring forward in a British House of Commons;
you talk of patriotism and of sacrifice, and we are asked willy-nilly to agree to anything you may bring forward. know that it is a very small matter about which to make a ceremony, an ounce of thick twist or a few packets of cigarettes, but the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) has reminded us that tobacco first came from the United States. I would remind the House that a very small question, a tax on tea, lost us the United States, and if history has a way of repeating itself I would say to the unhappy gentlemen opposite, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Prime Minister, the late lamented and no flowers by request, that just as a tax on tea lost us the American colonies so will the beer tax and the tobacco tax be remembered by many a poor man who has been told that for the sake of the nation's welfare he must tighten his belt and smoke an ounce of tobacco which has been so heavily taxed by the Government.

Mr. AMERY: As a non-smoker, I can hardly feel so deeply about the question of a duty on tobacco as the hon. Member who has just addressed us, and so far as his observations are concerned I would only say this, that as the late Government were not prepared to go as far as the present Government in the direction of cuts in order to balance the Budget, I can hardly conceive that they would not have included this particular item among their extra duties. I have risen just for a moment to point out the connection of this particular Duty with the very difficult problem of the balance of trade, the problem about which we heard so much yesterday. In connection with that position the trade which involves us in the heaviest direct loss of gold is that which consists of our imports from the United States of America. The overwhelming bulk of our purchase of tobacco, averaging about £15,000,000 a year, has in recent years come from the United States. The figures are slightly lower for last year, but the average is about £15,000,000.
In view of the immense deficit on our general trade balance with the United States, the fact that for the last six years they have sent us £140,000,000 a year more than we have sent them, means that this purchase of tobacco has drawn directly to that extent upon our stock of gold or the gold credits which we obtain elsewhere.
On the other hand, the purchase of tobacco from the British Empire is quite different. A very large part of our tobacco purchases from the Empire come from the Crown Colonies—Nyasaland is a Crown Colony—and these territories are actually on the sterling exchange. Their currency is kept at par and level with the sterling by the establishment of currency boards, and our purchases of tobacco, although they figure in our total list of imports, involve no strain on the gold standard whatever, no more than if we bought our tobacco from Scotland or from other parts of the United Kingdom. When we buy our tobacco from the Dominions or Colonies with responsible Governments, like South Rhodesia, their imports to this country naturally correspond to our imports to 'them, and buying from them does not involve a serious strain upon the gold standard. So far as we purchase from them so they are ready and able to purchase from us.
Therefore, the only point I desire to make, and I am not pressing for any alteration in this duty at the present moment, is the importance, when we are taking the question of our trade balance and the gold standard into consideration in the near future, of increasing still further and more effectively the preference we give. to tobacco from the Colonies in order to transfer the bulk of these purchases—I will not say whether they are a luxury or not—to a source which will satisfy the needs of our people and at the same time involve no strain upon our exchange. Indeed, it will help to liberate gold for world demand. The gold we send to the United States is buried there; the gold which is not sent there and which remains at the disposal of this country, with its old established tradition of investing overseas, is available not only for this country and the Empire but for world development as a whole and helps to keep up world prices. It may be a relatively small point but it is an illustrative point, because it bears on many other articles besides tobacco, and, therefore, I urge my hon. and gallant Friend, who I know has taken a very keen interest in this question, to keep in view the consideration of an increased preference for tobacco not merely from the point of view of the development of the territories concerned and
their trade with us, but also from the point of view of its effect on the maintenance of the gold standard in this country and the maintenance of world prices.

Mr. EDE: I am quite sure that the 14,000 unemployed in my constituency will feel tremendously impressed when I recount to them the story we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and I am able to unfold to them that it is the miserable fag-ends of Gold Flake cigarettes which they smoke which has precipitated this appalling gold standard crisis in this country. We understand now that the gold standard crisis is really a Gold Flake crisis. After all, King Charles's head must come in and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the way in which he has managed to bring it into this discussion. There would appear to he many King Charles's heads, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned. He has decapitated not one but many monarchs, and he is perpetually bringing their heads here on his oratorical pikes.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am a non-smoker. Like him, I have to judge tobacco not by its effect on the palate, but by its effect on the nostrils. I gather that even he, with all his Colonial zeal, cannot bring himself to smoke Colonial tobacco. My friends who do smoke assure me that quality as well as place of origin has something to do with it. I would like to have a census taken of members of the party opposite who would smoke Colonial cigars in preference to Havanas. I am sure that the result would be most distressing to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and that Lord Beaverbrook would probably start a fresh crusade right away. There was the classic example of the Irish tobacco. In pre-War days there was no more popular Member of this House than the late Major William Redmond, but when he brought down some tobacco grown in his own constituency and passed it off on some of his friends in various parties, it almost removed him from their list of friends in the smoke room. With that disaster staring the right hon. Gentleman in the face I really hope that he will not pursue this advocacy in his own party, or he may find himself even further back from the Front Bench than he is now. I am waiting to hear a single right hon.
and hon. Gentleman opposite, except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, get up and say that he believes in this Budget.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A right hon. or hon. Member would not be in order in doing so on this particular occasion.

Mr. EDE: I was going to add the words "or any particular Clause of the Budget, any of the individual duties proposed." We know quite well that this is not the kind of thing that hon. Members opposite wanted. It is not the kind of thing that they believed they were going to get. I oppose this Budget, not for the reasons that hon. Members opposite have in their hearts for opposing it, but because I believe that every one of the taxes so far discussed is a tax aimed at making the poorest of the poor bear an unfair share of the burden. To an unemployed man who is to receive only 15s. 3d. a week a cigarette will become an absolute luxury. With regard to cigarettes, he will be like the Yorkshire local preacher with regard to cigars. The preacher was asked at the beginning of the year how many cigars he expected to smoke during the year, and his answer was: "It all depends on the generosity of my friends." That will be the extent of the cigarette smoking by the majority of the unemployed and the more poorly paid workers of the country. I hope that there will be a decided vote taken against every one of these proposals to spread heavily and still more heavily upon the poorest the burden of a crisis which was not their fault and in which they have no share.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I cannot help but think that the hon. Member who has just spoken has taken a very narrow and ignorant view of the speech and opinions expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). The hon. Member stated that he was a non-smoker. He showed his gross ignorance of the tobaccos which are grown within the Empire. I can assure him that to-day Empire tobacco is a very different thing from what it was 15 or 20 years ago. It is possible now to purchase Empire tobacco every bit as good as the best tobacco sold to us by the United States. In regard to cigars, it is possible to buy cigars manufactured in the Empire, from tobacco
grown in the Empire, Jamaican cigars for instance, which in my opinion are every bit as good as Havana cigars. Candidly I cannot afford Havana cigars, even if I wanted to have them, and I much prefer the Empire cigar.
Let the hon. Member think this matter over again and try to become a little more national and a little less international. Let him think a little more broadly and a little less narrowly, and he will see that the proposals of my right hon. Friend, in favour of our trying to do more trade with our Dominions and less with the United States, would he very much to the benefit of the working classes of the country, if not so much to the benefit of the working classes of the United States. I hope to see 1½d. an ounce placed upon tobacco, with a 1d. of that 1½. as preference in favour of Empire-grown tobacco. If that had been done before we should have seen a considerable reduction in the amount of foreign tobacco consumed in this country and an increase in the sales of Empire tobacco, which would have meant an increase of the wealth of our people overseas and would have enabled them to increase their purchasers of manufactures from this country. I hope that that point will be taken into consideration by some Chancellor of the Exchequer in future Budgets. Let me remind the House that the very things which are being proposed to-day and which we so much dislike, but which we support for the safety of the country, are the very things which were the pet schemes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he had the enthusiastic support of Members of the Labour party.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not quite see the force of the references made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) to the subject of the gold standard and the consumption of Empire tobacco, because this Budget is imposing the same duty on Empire tobacco as upon any other kind of tobacco. It is a remarkable fact that hon. Members, from the Conservative benches particularly, are from time to time fond of pressing the claims of Empire tobacco and Empire produce upon the consideration of this House. Some time ago I took the trouble to find out for myself how far those Members put their principles of Imperialism into practice in this House, and I dis-
covered—no doubt the figures may have varied more favourably to Empire-grown tobacco by this time—that something like six or eight ounces of Empire tobacco was consumed by Members of the House, so far as they bought their tobacco within the precincts.

Sir W. WAYLAND: Here is some Empire tobacco.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. Member's example evidently is not followed by very many of his colleagues on the Conservative side, unless they buy their tobacco outside the House. A few days ago the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) in an interjection suggested as a common experience that unemployed men on the dole were able to smoke and to drink and to gamble. I do not want to consider this question solely from the point of view of the unemployed man. This tax upon tobacco is a burden upon the workers generally. It means a considerable number of pence every week in the expenditure of working-class folk, whose incomes really do not allow for very much variation in expenditure. The tax is a serious burden to the single unemployed man. The unemployed man with a wife and family to maintain, if he is able to smoke at all, will not be able to smoke much either of Imperial or any other kind of tobacco.
I want to take up one point made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. That was in reference to what might have been suggested by the last Government regarding taxation under conditions of emergency. I was not a Member of the late Cabinet and I do not know at all what kind of discussion went on upon subjects of this character and upon what might be necessary in order to balance the Budget. I have no information at all on the subject. But, whatever might have been suggested upon the consideration either of a tobacco tax or a beer tax, we have to consider the matter in present circumstances in relation to the Budget as a whole, and really the burden of our objection is not so much to any kind of luxury tax, whether it affects the working class or any other class, considered by itself, as that it is the edge of a precipice so far as the ordinary, common, reasonable amenities of life are concerned, and must be considered in
relation to the possibilities of expenditure not only of the unemployed, but of the ordinary underpaid working-class man in the community.

Viscountess ASTOR: Would the lion. Member rather tax tea and sugar than beer and cigarettes?

Mr. MONTAGUE: If the proposal were made to tax tea and sugar, I should certainly oppose it. If the question was the taxation of tea and sugar on the one hand and on the other hand the taxation of beer and cigars and tobacco, I should prefer the tax on cigars and tobacco. But that is not exactly the case. The point is that this is taxation upon what is, even if a luxury, the kind of luxury which comes very near the margin of necessity for large numbers of people. It does add to the burden of the community and the poorest section of it. It does mean that there is a solace taken away from them, and that is on top of the other unfair burdens imposed by the Budget. It is because of that and not because of any isolated point of view or principle about the matter that we oppose this taxation.

6.0 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: The House in reviewing this taxation may quite reasonably say that. an increase in the price of tobacco involves, as the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) says, an infringement of the amenities of life for those who are subject to the increase of price, whether poor or rich. I think it will be agreed by all that the enjoyment of tobacco is common to all classes of the community. The leader of our party has said as much in praise of the virtues of tobacco as any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in any part of the House. Let me bring the House back again to the reason why this Resolution has been reported to it. This Resolution has been reported from Committee of Ways and Means because the House went into Committee of Ways and Means to decide how the deficits in this year's and next year's Budgets were to be raised. The only reason why we were brought back here this autumn to sit in Committee of Ways and Means was the shortage of revenue which had to be made up. {HON MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members may deny that statement, but at any rate they will
not deny that that is the reason for the presentation of this Budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I will not weaken on that point. That is the reason for the presentation of this Budget. We are here to consider what ways and means have been found by Committee of the House to be necessary for raising the revenue of which the country stands in need.
I ask the House to consider the consumption of tobacco and the revenue derived from it in recent years. The consumption of tobacco in 1913–14 was 98,539,000 lbs. In the years after the War that consumption rose to 125,678,000 lbs. It may be said that a great change in habits took place during the War; that the Army trained all male subjects to smoke, and that the increase of smoking among women was also responsible for a good part of that increase. But the increase did not stop there. The consumption of tobacco in 1924–25 had reached 129,103,000 lbs. and in the year 1928–29 it had reached 141,000,000 lbs. That is not the end of the story. In 1929–30 it went up to 151,000,000 lbs. and in 1930–31 to 154,707,000 lbs. It is clear that any Chancellor of the Exchequer looking for revenue would be bound to take notice of the increased consumption of this commodity—luxury or necessity, whichever it may be called. I do not deny what the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) has said that to a hard-up man, to a navvy or a docker, a "dottle" of black twist in the bowl of his pipe may be a great solace. Still a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the circumstances I have mentioned sees this commodity, which he has already taxed, showing an increase in consumption of 13,000,000 lbs. between 1928 and 1930. He is bound to see that the weight of taxation which has been imposed upon it so far has done nothing to check the consumption of that commodity.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore proposes an increase in the duty upon that commodity. The duty which is already taken from tobacco is very considerable. The increase which is £2,100,000, this year will be in addition to a revenue which is well over £60,000,000 in the year. I do not think
it can be contended that a revenue which has risen from £59,000,000 sterling in 1928–29 to £64,000,000 sterling in 1930–31 is not a revenue which would inevitably attract the attention of a Chancellor of the Exchequer seeking the ways and means of meeting a great deficit in his Budget. That remark applies not merely to this Government and not merely to the late Government. The late Government considered and approved in principle of the necessity for the increase of these very taxes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham)—the Chancellor-designate, if I may so call him—wrote an authoritative article on the subject in the official organ of his party and explained how lie would balance the Budget. He drew attention to the possibilities of this revenue and he explained that his scheme for balancing the Budget included increases of taxation on intoxicating liquor and tobacco. Therefore, we are all agreed that this taxation is necessary. We are all agreed that necessity drives us to find an increase of revenue and that this is one of the ways in which that increase should be found.

Mr. LOGAN: Not on the lower grades.

Major ELLIOT: It can always be argued about any taxation, (a) that it is too low, (b) that it is too high, or (c) that it should have been raised in some other fashion. But let me assure the hon. Member for the Scotland Division that to raise the revenue required, it is necessary to make such an increase as is proposed here. That brings me to the further point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He put a specific question as to whether the tobacco trade had been consulted and undertakings obtained in regard to this proposal. There has been no consultation with the tobacco trade and no undertakings were consequently obtained. This was an emergency Budget; the taxes were put on and the firms will need to deal with the question of how that extra impost upon them is to be borne, as best they can.
I think I have now dealt with nearly all the points raised by hon. Members save the point of considerable importance raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr.
Amery). He drew attention to the fact, which, oddly enough, was challenged in some quarters of the House, that the strain upon our resources in purchasing from the United States of America was, greater than the strain upon our resources caused by purchasing from our Crown Colonies. I do not think anybody would deny that the percentage of trade which we do with every inhabitant of our Crown Colonies is much greater than the percentage of trade which we do with the inhabitants of the United States. I am not going into the vexed question of balance of trade, of triangular balance of trade or quadrilateral balance of trade, but I think we are all agreed that these heavy payments which we have to make to the United States are a considerable strain upon our exchange with that country. The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook are proposals in which I myself in the past have taken a great interest and I shall certainly see that they are not neglected when these matters are being considered and reviewed. I fully agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) who said that those who ran down Empire tobacco were speaking in ignorance. Empire tobacco—the pipe tobacco and, in many eases the cigarette tobacco is tobacco which any man—or woman—in this House might not only be pleased to smoke but proud to offer to friends. I hope it will be possible now for the House to give us this Resolution.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary with his accustomed skill has defended the taxes which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor proposes to impose in this additional Budget. My reason for taking a different attitude on this tobacco tax is the unfairness of imposing double and treble taxation upon the same people, and those people the poorer sections of the community. I can understand, where there is difficulty in balancing a Budget, a case being made out for putting some part of the burden on the working people, possibly, even on those with the most slender incomes, and if the balance of sacrifice had been sought by direct taxation on the well-to-do and indirect taxation falling on the poorer sections of the community, and if it. had been left at that, something like
equality of sacrifice might have been achieved. But this tax on tobacco considerable as it is falls, as an additional burden upon people who in other parts of the Budget are called upon to bear their share of sacrifice. Let me take one or two examples. Take the case of the civil servant. It is part of the Government programme that civil servants are going to have their salaries cut by the reduction of the bonus to 50 points from 55. In addition to that reduction of salary, they have to face this additional burden of the tax upon tobacco.
Take the case of the unemployed. They are to suffer the cut in benefit which the Government propose at present—unless that is one of the hardships which we are told are going to be modified—and they have to bear this tobacco tax on the top of it. We have been discussing, mainly by question and answer across the Floor of the House the position of members of His Majesty's Services, the Army and the Navy. Points have been raised as to whether the Government will alter their proposals in regard to these men but these men will not suffer merely the proposed cut in their pay if the Government proposals go through. The soldier or the sailor when he smokes his tobacco or chews his "quid" in addition, he mulcted through these taxes. That, again, is true of the teachers. According to the Government's original plan the teachers are to bear a heavy share of this attempt to economise at the expense of the salaries and wages of the country. But the teachers do not escape with that burden. Through these indirect taxes they will he called upon to bear an additional burden. [Interruption.] I understood the interjection of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) to mean that those who had large incomes would also have to bear that burden.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I did not say anything of the kind. The hon. Gentleman said the soldier and the sailor would suffer and I merely remarked that so would he and so would I.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I understand the hon. Member for Kidderminster to mean that all sections of the community will have to hear their burdens. That is quite true, but the point that I think he overlooks is that
when you are dealing with persons with considerable means a small extra charge on tobacco is a very slight additional sacrifice that they are called upon to make, but where you are dealing, for instance, with a sailor, who is getting a shilling or two a day, or with a teacher, who, with a very great deal of expenditure, is only getting £100 or £150 a year, this additional taxation will press very heavily. Therefore, I propose to give my vote against this Resolution, because I do not consider that, in view of the heavy cuts that are being made and the reduction of income that is thereby being imposed on the poorer sections of the community, this additional burden ought to be placed upon them.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary explained that there had been no arrangement whatever with the tobacco houses with regard to how this duty would be paid. Therefore, we may take it that they may consider themselves free to take any course they may think fit in passing it on to the consumer, but we in this House want to be sure that while the consumer suffers, the revenue is likely to gain. In the case of pipe tobacco, if the consumer smokes the same amount of tobacco as before, the revenue will gain, but in the case of cigarettes there is an alternative way in which the manufacturers can pass on the expense to the consumer, which will not give any increase of revenue to the Exchequer.
If the cigarette manufacturers alter the shape or length or, generally, the weight of the individual cigarette, they can still sell a packet of cigarettes for roughly the same price, and consequently the consumer will be smoking less, though he will hardly realise what he is doing, and the revenue will not get the benefit of the increased taxation. That would be a most unsatisfactory result of this extra burden that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing. Perhaps on some future occasion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will enlighten us as to the prospect of that being the effect of what the Chancellor is doing, because if these sacrifices are to be made, at least we ought to have the assurance that the revenue will gain in consequence of what is being done.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but
in view of what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said regarding the burden which will fall upon those with small incomes because of this Tobacco Duty, I may be allowed to say a word or two, particularly referring to the curious position which arises owing to the fact that those who wish to save a little expenditure on tobacco, and particularly on cigarettes, have a course open to them. I well remember that at one time, when the Imperial Economic Committee, of which I was then a member, was holding an inquiry into tobacco, we were informed by representatives of all the great cigarette dealing concerns in this country that in fact the proportion of Empire tobacco which could be put into cigarettes entirely depended upon the peculiar taste of the cigarette smoker and that—

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: It appeared from that inquiry that a very slight change in the taste of the cigarette-consuming public would enable a larger supply of Empire tobacco to be put into cigarettes, and there would then be an automatic reduction of price owing to the preference which Empire tobacco received. It seems to me, therefore, that if the cigarette smoker was satisfied to take a slightly different cigarette, he would in fact avoid the increased duty. Although the hon. Gentleman opposite has said that this is a sacrifice especially by those with low incomes, it is well to bear in mind that it is equally a. sacrifice by all and one which everybody can avoid by reducing the amount of tobacco smoked. Therefore, it is the fairest of all forms of additional taxation that can be imposed in an emergency.
It has already been said on these benches, in connection with the previous discussion, that we do not intend to vote for these further duties because we like them; we merely do so because it is a national necessity to do so. I think there is a good deal more to be said for this duty than there is for the last duty. In that ease I am extremely sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to make some arrangement by which that duty would not be passed on to the consumer, but the Tobacco Duty is the
fairest of all duties, and by taking Empire tobacco to a larger extent, the cigarette smoker can avoid it and—

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: How is the pipe tobacco smoker going to gain?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to finish my sentence. Secondly, he can, of course, avoid the extra imposition by reducing the amount that he smokes altogether. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member who interrupted that if he looks up the evidence, he will find that the position is exactly the same with regard to the pipe smoker, except that in his case a very much larger percentage of Empire tobacco is already included in almost all the mixtures smoked, and therefore the only difference is that the pipe smoker is a better supporter of the Empire than the cigarette smoker.

Mr. ARNOTT: This proposal has been attacked on the ground of its injustice, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not attempted to meet that charge, but has sought to defend himself by saying that it is profitable, that the tax is bringing in more money and is therefore justified, and not only so, but that it is bringing in that extra money from a larger number of people. Therefore, whether it is a just tax or not is quite immaterial. That, I think, was the only defence put up for the tax. We are told that the Government have great courage and are quite different from their predecessors, and yet every act or proposal that the Government have brought forward, they have sought to justify, not on its merits, but on the ground that their predecessors were either going to do it or were considering it. There never was such a ease of a Government sheltering themselves behind their predecessors.
That defence was also brought forward by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland). There are rather remarkable associations sometimes, and we have had some very remarkable exhibitions in the Division Lobby during this Debate. He too alleged that this tax was recommended by the previous Government, and one might readily admit that a tax of this description might easily he considered by that Government, but this tax is part of a scheme. Hon.
Members opposite have always been vastly concerned, where the interests of the well-to-do were involved, in objecting to any proposal for double taxation. Our objection to this scheme is that it is a method of double taxation, and the Government have been careful to prevent us from discussing the taxation to which we take chief exception.
The proposals brought forward in the Economy Bill are a form of taxation and are excluded from being discussed in this House. The Government are going to adjust that taxation as they please, and it will fall on the very same people who will pay this tax, or rather on the people upon whom this tax will fall with the greatest severity. An hon. Member with a great rent-roll or who receives dividends from breweries or other prosperous concerns will not be materially affected by this tax, even if he buys the most expensive brands of tobacco, but the person who is to be subjected to Income Tax for the first time by the scaling down of the exemptions, or who is affected directly or indirectly by the proposed economy cuts, who may be an unemployed man or a man who may become unemployed for the first time as a. result of these economies, or who may have his wages reduced, which is the real object of the Economy Bill—any man subjected to these reductions or decreases or this taxation, because they are taxes when you analyse them, has to be subjected to this tax in turn; and the only defence made for the proposal by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is that it is profitable and that more people. will pay it. That is the very ground for objecting to it. that it is taxing people who are paying more than their share already and whose sacrifices will be greater than those of other sections of the community.
Neither the previous tax nor this tax can affect me personally to the slightest degree. I am one of those who completely escape and who will follow the advice tendered by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne), but although it will not affect me, I have a sense of fair play, and I know many people whom it will affect. I know quite a number of people who, if they are asked to sacrifice a necessity or this luxury, will prefer in many instances to sacrifice the
necessity and even to go short of food rather than do without their pipe. This, of course, will affect those particular individuals, and it will not affect them as a tax by itself, but in conjunction with other taxes, and will place a burden upon them of a very excessive character, when all those other things are taken into consideration.
For these reasons, I have no hesitation in opposing this tax, and even if I desired to support it, the Government have left me no alternative, because the Members of this House are not to be allowed to oppose or to amend in detail the real taxation to which they fundamentally object. If the Budget had been balanced by a fair scheme of taxation without special discrimination against people in certain employment, every Member would have consented to an increase of indirect taxation even greater than that. We have never been asked, however, to choose between indirect taxation and cuts in certain services. The poorer people have to accept both, and we know that the cuts will not stop with the Government employés. They will go through the whole field of industry, as they are intended to do, and we take the only means at our disposal to register our protest against that.

Mr. KELLY: I listened with interest to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) that it was possible for people to avoid paying this tax if they would cease from smoking. That applies to all the taxes of this type. There is no doubt that if people ceased from buying the taxed articles, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster suggested, they would not have to pay the tax. It is a curious point for him to put forward when we was supporting this increased tax because it would raise more money for the revenue. I wonder whether there has been any arrangement with the tobacco manufacturers. I had hoped that the Treasury would have had something to say to the distributors, certainly those on the wholesale side, who have been advantaged in every tax that has been imposed on tobacco. These people have already put the halfpenny on the ounce of pipe tobacco, and I think, unless the Financial Secretary can prove something to the contrary, that that will mean an in-
creased revenue, assuming that the same consumption will continue. It will mean an increased advantage to the wealthy tobacco manufacturers. They are already deceiving the public in suggesting that they are not passing on the tax in regard to cigarettes. We have been examining some packets of cigarettes, and we have noticed how speedily the manufacturers can manage to reduce the size of the cigarettes and to secure an advantage to themselves from this tax.
The Treasury were not acting fairly to the public, and particularly to those who smoke pipe tobacco, when they did not see that this tax was not to be passed on by the manufacturers, who are already making millions of pounds, and have been for many years past. This is an unjust tax. Tobacco is one of those articles that are used by the people, and it is quite simple for the Treasury to make an attack upon it; but they might have had sonic regard to the people whom they were attacking in other directions, whose wages they were reducing, before they placed another heavy burden on them. It was stated by the Financial Secretary that the late Government has been thinking of imposing an additional tax on this article. They may have been doing that, but if they had attempted to come to the House with such a proposal, they would have found in this party such opposition that they would not have carried it through. There are many other ways by which the Government could have raised this money. There are many large incomes. The Government might even have made an attack upon the huge profits of the tobacco concerns. Instead of that, they have been thinking the whole time of how to attack wages and the articles which are largely consumed by the working people. it is unfair and unjust, and I hope that the people outside will realise that the Government pay little regard to the comfort of the people who make their livelihood by wage-earning.

Mr. HASLAM: It is somewhat striking that Member after Member on the opposite side of the House should rise and oppose this tax. The Financial Secretary clearly explained that the reason for this increased tax is the very large deficit, and that the reason for the great part of that deficit is the gross mismanagement which the party opposite
showed in the affairs of the country. Therefore, when the unfortunate bearers of this tax—the working people—are obliged to pay more for the humble comfort of a pipe, it is the party opposite whom they should thank for that blessing. I believe that when the working man takes that into consideration, and further reflects that the major portion of the late Government brought the country to the edge of financial disaster and then ran away, it will not improve his opinion of hon. Members opposite. I represent many of those who feel this tax, hut I am confident that they will place the blame in the right quarter, and I shall walk into the Lobby in favour of it in order to save the financial position of this country.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) attributes to the party which was previously in office, but not in power, faults which they did not possess. He seems to assume that all the difficulties were due to the two years that they were in office, but I am certain that he knows better than that. I am certain that he has a good knowledge of what a war does to any country, and that he knows of the effect of the last huge War on this country. The party with which he has been associated was responsible for laying the foundations after the War of all that we are suffering now. Not only did they lay the foundation, but even when they saw that the superstructure was twisted here and there, they always tried to buttress it instead of getting back to the foundations. The whole of what we are suffering to-day is due to an accumulation of faults by a people who were said to be victorious in the Great War. These troubles really began in 1919, when employers in this country made up their minds to make reductions in wages which were said to be too high.

Mr. SPEAKER: I can hardly think that this retrospective history is in order on a Financial Resolution. We are dealing simply with the tax on tobacco.

Mr. HARDIE: I was trying to show that the reason for the tax is what happened in the past.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will agree with me that that argument might apply not only to this but to every tax.

Mr. HARDIE: There have been abnormal circumstances, and I suggest that abnormal circumstances demand abnormal measures. The proper way is to make sure that what we are doing will see us out of our difficulties. Seeing that equality of sacrifice is the basis of the taxes now proposed, the proper way would have been to place those taxes on those best able to bear them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has always made that the basis of his principles, and that ought to obtain now in order to give a sense of justice. If there had been that anxiety to deal justly with the people, there ought to have been a levy on the profits of the tobacco trust, on the millions that are growing year by year, over which we have no control. The hon. Member for Horncastle seemed to assume that when we were in office we had control over industry.

Mr. HASLAM: You increased the taxes on industry.

Mr. HARDIE: We tried as a minority to get back some of that which rightly belongs to the people. Your trading only exists because a large number of people are working—

Mr. SPEAKER: The remarks of the hon. Member are calculated to induce other hon. Members to take up a discussion which goes far beyond the terms of the Resolution before us.

Mr. HARDIE: I have no desire to do that; but I would like to point out that if we are to speak about equality of sacrifice, we ought to do it sincerely. It is a terrible thing to know from practical experience and through no fault of one's own, what want is. It is a terrible thing, when the country is said to be in danger, that an attack must be made upon those least able to bear it. I hoped the Government would have shown a spirit of equality of sacrifice behind their phrase, seeing that here was an opportunity of letting those huge trusts, over which we have no control, know that when a crisis comes they must part with some of their accumulations of vast wealth. There would have been more equality in making a levy upon their huge profits, but, apparently, we are not to get anything else but phrases so far as equality of sacrifice is concerned. With regard to the last Vote, I am a Prohibitionist—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot talk about the previous Resolution in this Debate.

Mr. HARDIE: —and, personally, I use very little tobacco, but I am pleading for those who have become addicted to the habit, and I want the House to realise that this form of taxation strikes right down into the pockets of people who can afford only the lowest price tobacco. Unless they get a present, they seldom have a chance of enjoying a high-class smoke. I hope the Government will see that even

though there is a crisis they should act justly, and let the weight of taxation fall upon the shoulders of those who can best afford to pay. If the action you take is just, what you say about it afterwards does not matter.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 213.

Division No. 472.]
AYES.
[6.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cooper, A. Duff
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hammersley, S. S.


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hanbury, C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cowan, D. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cranborne, Viscount
Harbord, A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Harris, Percy A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hartington, Marquess of


Aske, Sir Robert
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Haslam, Henry C.


Astor, Viscountess
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd, Henley)


Atkinson, C.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Balfour, Captain H. H. (1. of Thanet)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir S. J. G.


Balniel, Lord
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Beaumont, M. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Dawson, Sir Philip
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Berry, Sir George
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hurd, Percy A.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dixey, A. C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Sevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon, Herbert
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Birkett, W. Norman
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Bilndell, James
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Bracken, B.
Elmley, Viscount
Kedward, R- M. (Kent, Ashford)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
England, Colonel A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Knight, Hollord


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Ferguson, Sir John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Buchan, John
Fielden, E. B.
Law, Sir Allred (Derby, High Peak)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Foot, Isaac
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Butler, R. A.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Galbralth, J. F. W.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Carver, Major W. H.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Gillett, George M.
Lymington, Viscount


Cazalet. Captain Victor A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Glassey, A. E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Maclean, Sir Donald Cornwall, N.)


Chapman, Sir S.
Granville, E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Christie, J. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macquisten, F. A.


Church, Major A. G.
Gray, Milner
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Granted, Edward C. (City of London)
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Marjoribanks, Edward


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Markham, S. F.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mellar, R. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Calville, Major D. J.

Millar, J. D.


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Ross, Ronald D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Thompson, Luke


Muirhead, A. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Titchfield, Major the Marqutss of


Nail-Cain, A. H. N.
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter)
Salmon, Major I.
Train, J.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nicholson, D. (Westminster)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptsl'ld)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


O'Connor, T. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Savery, S. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Scott, James
Wayland, Sir William A.


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Penny, Sir George
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
White, H. G.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Withers, Sir John James


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, W. J.


Ramsbotham, H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Rathbone, Eleanor
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Reld. David D. (County Down)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.



Remer, John R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rentoul, Sir Gerva[...]s S.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Sir Frederick Thomson and


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Captain Wallace.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Leo, Jennle (Lanark, Northern)


Adamson, W, M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gill, T. H.
Leonard, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gossling, A. G.
Logan, David Gilbert


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Gould, F.
Longbottom, A. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Longden, F.


Amnion, Charles George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lunn, William


Arnott, John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McElwee, A.


Ayles, Walter
Groves, Thomas E.
McEntee, V. L.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grundy, Thomas W.
McKinlay, A.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barr, James
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McShane, John James


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Benson, G.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Manning, E. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Mansfield, W.


Bowen, J. W.
Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
March, S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marcus, M.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Haycock, A. W.
Marshall, Fred


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hayday, Arthur
Mathers, George


Brooke, W.
Hayes, John Henry
Maxton, James


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Messer, Fred


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mills, J. E.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Milner, Major J.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Herrlotts, J.
Montague, Frederick


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morley, Ralph


Chater, Daniel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Clarke, J. S.
Hoffman, P. C.
Mort, D. L.


Cluse, W. S.
Hollins, A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hopkin, Daniel
Muggeridge, H. T.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Murnin, Hugh


Compton, Joseph
Isaacs, George
Naylor, T. E.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Daggar, George
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oldfleld, J. R.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palin, John Henry


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Paling, Wilfrid


Devlin, Joseph
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Palmer, E. T.


Dukes, C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Duncan, Charles
Kinley, J.
Perry, S. F.


Dunnico, H.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ede, James Chuter
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawrence, Susan
Pole, Major D. G.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Potts, John S.


Egan, W. H.
Lawson, John James
Quibell, D. J. K.


Freeman, Peter
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Raynes, W. R.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Loach, W.
Richards, R.


Gibbins, [...]oseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)




Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Watkins, F. C.


Rlley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Ritson, J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonda)


Romeril, H. G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wellock, Wilfred


Rowson, Guy
Sorensen, R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Stephen, Campbell
Westwood, Joseph


Sanders, W. S.
Strauss, G. R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sandham, E.
Sullivan, J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Sawyer, G. F.
Sutton, J. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Scrymgeour, E,
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Scurr, John
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sherwood, G. H.
Tillett, Ben
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shield, George William
Toole, Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shi[...]ls, Dr. Drummond
Tout, W. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Shillaker, J. F.
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shinwell, E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Vaughan, David
Wise, E. F.


Simmons, C. J.
V[...]ant, S. P.
Young, R, S. (Islington, North)


Sinkinson, George
Walkden, A. G.



Sitch, Charles H.
Walker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)
Wallace, H, W.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.

Mr. KELLY: On a point of Order. I wish to call attention to the violent and brutal way in which an officer of this House was treated by between a dozen and a score of hon. Members on the other side, when they forced their way through the door into the Division Lobby at a time when he was trying to close it and was holding on to it. Their conduct was of the worst that I have seen since I came to this House, and it certainly was a brutal and violent way of treating an officer of this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: The epithets used by the hon. Member do not seem to be quite justified by what happened, but as there is an interval of six minutes between the time when I first put the Question and the order is given to close the doors, I think hon. Members might take the trouble to come in earlier.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I put this point to you, Sir, as one who always upholds the Chair in this House? The direction was given that the door should be closed and hon. Members hustled—if I may use a milder term than my hon. Friend— a servant of this House: but I would ask whether there are any means of preventing that kind of thing by adopting some process for closing the doors automatically when tie time is up?

Mr. SPEAKER: I said that six minutes seemed to me ample time. The way to stop it is for hon. Members to come in promptly.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does not the conduct of these hon. Members come within the category of obstruction? You, Sir, had given instructions for the doors to be
closed, and an officer of the House acting on those instructions is prevented from closing the doors by hon. Members who had ample time within six minutes to get inside the Lobbies.

Mr. SPEAKER: Technically it might come within that category, but it is not the first time I have seen it done.
Fourth and Fifth Resolutions agreed to.
Sixth Resolution read a Second time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in line 2, after the word "oils," to insert the words "other than turpentine and white spirit."
This is a manuscript Amendment, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not have expected notice of this Amendment, because he knew quite well we should move it, as we were bound to do, in the interests of the employment of a great number of people in our constituencies and of the welfare of very important industries in the city of Hull, which the hon. Member who will second the Amendment and I have the honour to represent. Earlier this Session a similar Amendment was moved and supported by the whole of the Conservative party and a number of members of the Liberal party. I hope they have not altogether lost their sense of justice and right by crossing the Floor of the House, and I therefore look for their support to this Amendment as a simple act of justice. I am glad to see that one of the hon. Members for the East Riding of Yorkshire is here. I am sure we may rely on his support, for he made an impassioned speech on the previous occasion in favour of the Amendment.
I do not want to go over the whole ground, which has been gone over in Parliament again and again, and has always been admitted as a just ground by the Chancellor himself. He practically promised us last year that he would remove this oppressive duty. It is a revenue ta[...]ff and a tax on a raw material, white spirit and turpentine, which should never have been imposed in conjunction with the petrol duties. Turpentine cannot be used in any kind of engine. It is only used for making lino, paint, polishes and other materials. White spirit can be used in some kinds of caburettors, but when there was no duty on it, although it was considerably cheaper, it was never much used. There is no question of white spirit being used in engines, and it is therefore a revenue tax—that awful thing which the right hon. Gentleman is so fond of decrying. It is a tax imposed on a vital raw material in an industry which has to fight in the export market. A rebate is given if the manufactured goods are exported, but it not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to be told that the loss and inconvenience caused by delays in paying the duty and then recovering it, filling up documents and going into the excise offices and answering questions and so on, is an almost intolerable hindrance and nuisance to men engaged in a perfectly legitimate industry.
I will tell the Chancellor this, which I hope he will use in the fight which he is waging. The manufacturers of paint and turpentine in my constituency, which is the biggest centre in the country for the industry, had admitted to us that they were tariff reformers, but their experience of this duty and the annoyance to which they have been put have converted them to Free Trade. I tell him that in case he comes to Hull again. The country may be in difficulties, and he may say he needs the revenue, but we know perfectly well it is necessary to increase the export trade, and this is a direct hindrance to any increase of that trade. Rather than put a tax on raw materials in goods which play a part in paying for imports of wheat and food, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be giving us a bounty. That would be much more sensible, for it would be constructive, while this is simply hindering many manufacturers of lino and paint who have to compete in the world markets
with their rivals in Germany, France and other countries.
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he agrees with every word I have said so far, yet he will get up and say that he would like to be able to do it, but that he is sorry he cannot for he needs the money. While he is raising money where he can, he is picking out a number of industries for taxation of raw materials, and this extra 2d. will be very oppressive. There may be a ease for a general tax on petrol—I am not discussing that, now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) will deal with that. That is a protective duty. The right hon. Gentleman had given some measure of protection to the industry which extracts petrol from our own coal, but you cannot extract turpentine from coal. He might just as well put a, tax on cotton. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not raising this matter in any party spirit at all. The fact is that my hon. Friends and myself have moved this Amendment in previous Budgets. I moved it when I was in Opposition to the then Conservative Government, and also when I was supporting the right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House. I hope that the Conservative Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) will not forget all he said on this very important matter when in Opposition. I, therefore, commend this Amendment to the House, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to do something to help British industry and employment, because everything he has done so far in the present Government has been a great injury and hindrance to it.

Mr. ARNOTT: On the last occasion when we debated this matter, we had speeches from every side supporting the Amendment, and we had a remarkable amount of support from the Front Opposition Bench and from some Members who are now Members of the present Government. One of those Members actually indulged in prophecy. He said that if there was such a thing as a National Government and a Council of State formed in this country, that would be the proper time to abolish by mutual consent a tax of this description. That was the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), who is now a
Member of such a Government. I shall be interested to see if he votes the same way as he did a few months ago, and if he makes the same kind of speech, because it is not merely a question of ins and outs. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead did not talk about what could be done if a Liberal Government were returned, however remote he may have thought it. He said that if a Government of this description were formed, it should be done—and perhaps he thought that was a remote possibility as well. I urge him to use all his influence, if he has any at all with the present Government, to bring about this reform. This tax is more than an ordinary protective tax. An ordinary protective tax would no doubt help one industry at the expense of the rest, and it would injure a number of others, and we can nearly always count on the other industries making a protest. The industries affected by this tax have made a protest and their Members, regardless of party, have protested in this House.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has reminded us that the Members for Hull have spoken against this tax and have moved Amendments. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) was the most enthusiastic Member of all on the last occasion, and we shall watch with interest to see what he does to-day. This tax affects an industry which is virtually confined to certain areas in the country. It is not one of our big industries, but it does seriously affect certain of the Hull constituencies, Birkenhead and Wolverhampton. Consequently, all Members representing these districts have made their protest, and that protest was voiced and emphasised by the present Minister of Health, who agreed with me that we had had a great many favourable words from the Chancellor, but nothing in the way of performance. That is equally true to-day. While this tax is objectionable in itself, it is even more objectionable when we have it in connection with other demands which are being made on a great number of people. This is the direct taxation of a small industry, and the tax is proposed on a particular commodity because that com-
modity comes under the same definition as another commodity which is taxed.
The case for taxing petrol was stronger before the present Government was formed than it is now, because it is connected with a tax on road transport, which it was held was treated very favourably in comparison with the railways. There was a case for a tax on petrol before the Road Fund was dealt with, but the tax we are now discussing has not even that justification. There is no resemblance between the uses of turpentine and petrol which are used for quite dissimilar purposes. The tax on turpentine was included in the Budget by an accident, and it has been retained because it has been found to be profitable. It is all very well to say that the industry can stand the tax. There might be an argument for it as far as that point is concerned, but that has nothing to do with the case. The point is that this particular industry has been singled out for taxation, and no Member of the Government has given any reason for taking that course.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that my answer to his appeal to accept this Amendment would probably be that, although I had a good deal of sympathy with his proposal, in the present circumstances I would not be able to sacrifice the extra revenue. That, indeed, is precisely the answer that I have to give. I could not possibly afford at the present time to forgo this extra amount of money.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the amount involved?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have not looked into this matter since it was discussed in Parliament, but if I remember aright the amount was somewhere in the neighbourhood of £500,000—I think it was £400,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the yield of the extra 2d?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The total amount of duty on the two articles is £700,000 and I think the amount in the case of turpentine is about £400,000. As to the amount represented by the extra 2d.,
I should say that the extra sum would be about one-fourth, that is £200,000, and that is a sum which I could not possibly surrender on this occasion. I can only ask the hon. and gallant Member to live in hopes during the next 12 months, and at any rate he and his colleagues will have the satisfaction of knowing that, although it is not possible for me to accede to their request, their constituencies will see that their representatives have been looking after their interests.

Mr. EDE: I gathered from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other night that we on this side of the House are not going to be here much longer, and that before long we shall be sitting on the other side. I do not understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is going to be on the

other side much longer, although from what he has just stated he appears to be of the opinion that he will be Chancellor of the Exchequer next year. On behalf of my constituents I desire to protest agains the continuance of this tax. It is an impost on a raw material used in dyeing. There is a dye works in my constituency employing a considerable number of men, and accordingly they have consistently protested against the imposition of this duty and its continuance. I hope that these people will get more justice from the next Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer than from the only one we have had up to the present moment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 284.

Division No. 473.]
AYES.
[7.25 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Gill, T. H.
Longbottom, A. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gossling, A. G.
Longden, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gould, F.
Lunn, William


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McElwee, A.


Alpass, J. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McEntee, V. L.


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D, R. (Glamorgan)
McKinlay, A.


Angell, Sir Norman
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
MacNeill-Weir. L.


Ayles, Walter
Grundy, Thomas W.
McShane, John James


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Manning, E. L.


Barr, James.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mansfield, W.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
March, S.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marcus, M.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hardle, David (Ruthergien)
Marley, J.


Bowen, J. W.
Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Marshall, Fred


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mathers, George


Broad, Francis Alfred
Haycock, A. W.
Maxton, Jamas


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hayday, Arthur
Messer, Fred


Brooke, W.
Hayes, John Henry
Middleton, G.


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mills, J, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Miner, Major J.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Montague, Frederick


Burgess, F. G.
Herriotts, J.
Morgan Dr. H. B.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morley, Ralph


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Carter, w. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Ho[...]ins, A.
Mort, D. L.


Chatar, Daniel
Hopkin, Daniel
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Clarke, J. S.
Horrabin, J. F.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Murnin, Hugh


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Isaacs, George
Naylor, T. E.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Noel Baker, P. J.


Compton, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oldfield, J. R.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Daggar, George
Kelly, W. T.
Palin, John Henry


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Paling, Wilfrid


Day, Harry
Kinley, J.
Palmer, E. T.


Dukes, C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Duncan, Charles
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Perry, S. F.


Dunnico, H.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ede, James Chuter
Lawrence, Susan
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Edmunds, J, E.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Pole, Major D. G.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Potts, John S.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Egan, W. H.
Leach, W.
Raynes, W. R.


Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Richards, R.


Freeman, Peter
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Gibbins, Joseph
Leonard, W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Logan, David Gilbert
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Romeril, H. G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wellock, Wilfred


Rowson, Guy
Sorensen, R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stamford, Thomas W.
West, F. R.


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Strauss, G. R.
Westwood, Joseph


Sanders, W. S.
Sullivan, J.
Whitetey, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sandham, E.
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Sawyer, G. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Scrymgeour, E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Sherwood, G. H.
Toole, Joseph
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shield, George William
Tout, W. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shillaker, J. F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Vaughan, David
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Simmons, C. J.
Viant, S. P.
Wise, E. F.


Sinkinson, George
Walkden, A. G.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sitch, Charles H.
Walker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wallace, H. W.



Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Watkins, F. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mr. Arnott and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colman, N. C. D.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Colville, Major D. J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Albery, Irving James
Cooper, A. Duff
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cowan, D. M.
Hammersley, S. S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hanbury, C.


Aske, Sir Robert
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harbord, A.


Astor, Viscountess
Crookshank, Capt. H, C.
Harris, Percy A.


Atkinson, C.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hartington, Marquess of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Haslam, Henry C.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Beaumont, M. W.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Birkett, W. Norman
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Blindell, James
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hurd, Percy A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Boyce, Leslie
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Bracken, B,
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
England, Colonel A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Briscoe, Richard George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Buchan, John
Ferguson, Sir John
Knight, Holford


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fielden, E. B.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Butler, R. A.
Foot, Isaac
Lane Fox. Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ford, Sir P. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Campbell, E. T.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Carver, Major W. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Hands v'th)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gillett, George M.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm.,W.)
Glassey, A. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lymington, Viscount


Chapman, Sir S.
Gower, Sir Robert
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Christie, J. A.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Church, Major A. G.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gray, Milner
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macquisten, F. A.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)




Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Remer, John R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Marjoribanks, Edward
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Markham, S. F.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Meller, R. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Millar, J. D.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Thompson, Luke


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ross, Ronald D,
Thomson, Sir F.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)
Train, J.


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Salmon, Major I,
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Muirhead, A. J.
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Warrender, Sir Victor


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Savery, S. S.
Wayland, Sir William A.


O'Connor, T. J.
Scott, James
Wells, Sydney R.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
White, H. G.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.J


Owen, Majar G. (Carnarvon)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peake, Captain Osbert
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Penny, Sir George
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Withers, Sir John James


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Womersley, W. J.


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Pybus, Percy John
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)



Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Southby, Commander A. R.J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ramsbotham, H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Captain Margesson and Viscount Elmley.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



Seventh Resolution agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. SHINWELL: I rise, not to oppose this tax, but for the purpose of eliciting certain information from the right hon. Gentleman, and of inviting the attention of the House to the somewhat piquant position in which we find ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman, when introducing his principal Budget this year, referred to the Petrol Duty as one primarily and essentially designed for the purpose of raising revenue. He was careful to point out that it was in no sense a tax imposed for protective purposes, and, if I remember his language aright, he stated that he would take the earliest opportunity of dispensing with this imposition. The right hon. Gentleman's position with regard to these taxes is perfectly clear. His desire is to raise revenue. But, on the other hand, the considered opinion of his assistant, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is that this tax and similar taxes are protective in their character. I leave that aspect of the question alone for the time being, but, while not opposing this tax, it must be clearly understood that I am speaking for myself and those behind me when I say that we do not regard this imposition as one which industry can afford to bear.
It is perfectly true that, if we are committed to indirect taxation, a tax on petrol is as good as any for that purpose; but we cannot blind ourselves to the obvious fact that we are now witnessing the placing of a further and serious burden upon the shoulders of industry. I would remind the House of what this actually represents in figures, it represents, with this imposition, a total burden of £28,000,000 annually. That is a very serious burden indeed. It may be claimed, and it certainly will be claimed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, though not by the right hon. Gentleman, whose views are well known, that this further imposition will conduce to the advantage of the home oil-producing industry. As to that I would say this. If it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those associated with him, including the Financial Secretary, to render assistance to the home oil-producing industries, there are other and better ways of so doing.
I should like to invite the attention of the House to what has happened in recent months with regard to this question. There is in Scotland, in my own constituency and in the adjoining constituency represented by the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville), the shale oil industry,
producing light spirit from shale. That industry has undergone many and serious fluctuations since the War. The number of persons employed in it at the close of the War was in the region of 12,000. Subsequently there was a severe curtailment, and—and this is exceedingly important in relation to the matter under review—in spite of the imposition of a Petrol Duty by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), which might be regarded as advantageous to the shale oil industry and cognate industries, another serious curtailment of the industry occurred, and a large number of men were disemployed.
Some months ago the attention of the late Government was directed to the parlous plight of this industry, and we proceeded to consider suggestions and proposals from those engaged in the industry and from others with a view to finding a solution, or at least, a partial solution, of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman had the matter under review, and he added, entirely apart from this consideration, but for revenue purposes, a further 2d. to the Petrol Duty. I confess without hesitation—I speak quite frankly—that, in the circumstances then confronting us, I regarded it, and many of my friends so regarded it, as beneficial to the home oil-producing industries, including the shale oil industry of Scotland. It represented an increase in price and a preference to the home industry. But, although it represented an increased yield and a preference, it was not protective in character. It did not restrict the importation of foreign oil. The importation of foreign oil has increased all along the line, in spite of the latest imposition and those preceding it, and, if I understand the position correctly, a protective duty is a duty designed to restrict the importation of a foreign commodity. Manifestly in this case that did not happen, and it became clear to those interested in the industry that the imposition of a tax was inadequate for the purpose.
Thereupon submissions were made to the right hon. Gentleman, which no doubt he will recall, calling for, among other things, a direct subsidy amounting to something like £150,000 annually, which might, in the opinion of those who supported the proposal, have met the diffi-
culty confronting the industry at the time. [Interruption.] It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman has interjected, that it meant more than that. Admittedly that is so. With the reduction in the price of imported oil, the amount of subsidy required gathered in strength, and naturally that was bound to be the case. But further submissions were made to the right hon. Gentleman. At a later stage it was represented to us by those engaged in the industry, men and employers alike, and by experts, that no mere imposition of a tax, however high, whatever its yield, or whatever the effect on prices might be, would be sufficient for the purpose, and then a quota arrangement was suggested, that is to say, that for every gallon of home-produced oil—shale oil was not the only commodity under review—there should be an admixture of the imported article, and the accumulated effect in price would provide the home oil-producing industries with a higher yield. I need not go into the technicalities of the proposal hut, broadly, that was the submission made to us.
The Department for which I had some responsibility, and the Board of Trade, regarded the proposal on the whole favourably. In ordinary circumstances they might have rejected it, but, having regard to the very serious position of the industry—not only did it affect the shale oil industry, but low temperature carbonisation processes were similarly affected—it was thought that a quota arrangement might be satisfactory. It would have represented an increase all over of something like.£2600,000 to oil consumers. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman is as much opposed to the quota proposal as he is to Protection in the ordinary sense of that term, but I do not hold the view that a quota arrangement is Protection in the ordinary sense of the term. In any event, there are many of us on this side of the House who, although we do not regard Tariff Reform, Protection, or Preferences as advantageous to British industry, certainly do not regard unlimited and unfettered Free Trade as desirable. Some thing in the nature of regulation of imports is required. These proposals were submitted to the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says they came afterwards. In fact, they were submitted personally
by the President of the Board of Trade to the Prime Minister. The matter was urgent, and were entitled to believe, having regard to all the circumstances, to the almost frenzied claims and appeals of those engaged in the industry—the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville) saw the President of the Board of Trade and myself and, if I am not mistaken, he saw the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: We had better get this matter right. The hon. Gentleman knows that I had prolonged conversations with himself and others in regard to the condition of the shale oil industry. He will not deny that I showed the greatest sympathy with it and would have adopted any practical proposal of assistance. When I finished off was before a deputation met the President of the Board of Trade in Edinburgh representing, I think, the various local authorities in that part of Scotland, and the only knowledge I hare about a quota having been suggested—because it was never suggested in the previous conversations—the first intimation I had that a quota had been suggested was a newspaper report. It is not within my knowledge that the President of the Board of Trade reported to the Prime Minister. I have no doubt he did, but it will be remembered that that deputation was received by the President of the Board of Trade just about the time when the financial situation became very difficult. I dare say that it is the explanation why the matter was never brought before me.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I should he the last to dispute that he has always displayed sympathy with proposals put to him. It is the sympathy that is characteristic of him that has amazed some of us to find him in his present position. No one deplores that more than I do, as I think he well knows. There is no doubt that the other submissions made to the right hon. Gentleman were all rejected. Whether the quota was submitted to him or not—this is the first time I have heard that it was not submitted to him—it was certainly submitted to the Prime Minister and departmentally endorsed by the Mines Department and the Board of Trade; and, whether these subsequent proposals came before him or not, it is
clear that, if this further imposition of 2d., or even a penny, making 3d. in all, had been made in the main Budget of this year, there would have been no curtailment in the operations of the home oil producing industry. I see the dilemma that the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary are in and, indeed, that almost engulf myself, for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman does not mean this to be a Duty of a protective character. It is revenue in its purpose. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman believes it to be protective in character. That is the dilemma that both they and I are placed in.
If the right hon. Gentleman had been anxious and willing to assist the home oil producing industry and, instead of imposing 2d. in the original Budget of this year, had imposed 3d., that industry would have been saved for the time being, because of the increase in the yield. I do not suggest that it would have been permanently saved. If I were to suggest that, the right hon. Gentleman would dispute it at once, whatever his associates might care to think about it. But the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity, with the knowledge that he possessed at the time, to assist this industry, and he failed to do so. Here we have an industry which is practically going out of existence, with thousands of men disemployed, whole areas devastated, the valuation of the area affected, and many business people, shopkeepers and the like, suffering intensely. I want to make it perfectly clear, whatever may be said to the contrary, that the imposition of the tax at this time is belated from the standpoint of assisting the industry and can render no help. Therefore, it boils itself down to the question of whether this is an imposition on industry in general. As to that, there can be no doubt whatever. There is an imposition of.—28,000,000 annually. No doubt something will be said from these benches, and from the benches opposite, as to the effect of such a tax on the transport industry. If we have to consider indirect taxation at all, I should prefer that sort of taxation, which is of a general character in the main, to any other form of indirect taxation that can be imposed.
There is one question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the uncertainty of this tax in relation to
the home oil producing industry. A tax that can be removed or reduced by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is believed to be protective or not, certainly disturbs the home oil producing industry. That cannot be disputed. They never know whether they are going to get the benefit of the increased yield and the result of the preference accorded or not. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered, I will not say the stabilisation of some preference, but some alternative form of financial assistance. Perhaps the proper person to put that question to would not be the right hon. Gentleman, because he does not believe this tax is protective in its character. He is a Free Trader undiluted. I should put it to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He believes in Protection. He believes these preferential taxes are protective in character. Can he give any assurance that some alternative form of assisting these home industries will be afforded other than the imposition of this tax, which is subject to wild fluctuations? The main points that I have submitted for consideration are that, if this tax was intended to help the home industry, it has failed in its purpose. Secondly, in itself it imposes a severe burden upon industry in general. Thirdly, if it is intended to help home industry, there must be something in the nature of an assurance by some form of alternative machinery that home industry will not be subject to these violent disturbances.

8.0 p.m.

Major COLVILLE: The hon. Gentleman has put himself into a very curious and difficult position. I really could not gather whether he was opposing or supporting the Petrol Duty, but I took it from the burden of his speech that he regarded it as an unjustifiable burden on industry, useless to maintain or to do anything for the oil industry in this country at the present time, ill-timed and, therefore, one to which he and his party would object. He must know that in the shale oil industry there are employed rather over 3,000 people. He must know that at present their employment is in daily jeopardy owing to the world price of oil. He must also know that, unless this tax had come on at this present time—I am not going to argue
whether it was imposed for protective purposes or not; I am going to argue results rather than intentions—there was the very strongest probability that in that industry further sections of plant would have been closed down and that within a very short time unemployment would have been greatly aggravated in the Lothians. No one is more familiar with those facts that the ion. Gentleman. He says that, during the period of his office as Secretary for Mines, this matter was constantly under review. He did not succeed in putting forward any acceptable scheme which would have relieved the industry. He put forward certain schemes. They were not adopted. He felt very strongly about them. Why did he not resign his office when this industry, which is the principal one in his constituency and an important one in Scotland, could not in his opinion, and to use his own words, get fair play? That is a fair question to ask him, and I think that it should be asked not only here but in other parts of the country. The position is, as has been mentioned by the late Secretary for Mines, that a further proposal was put up more recently regarding a quota scheme. The hon. Member did not mention that that proposal was not made by him or by anyone of his party. It was first made by a Conservative Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), but the hon. Member did not think it worth while, when commending that scheme to the House generally, to say that it did not emanate from his own fertile brain or from anybody on his side of the House. That scheme is still under consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said very properly that it never came before him, and for the hon. Member to suggest that the newly-formed Government are to be blamed for not putting into operation a scheme which has only been considered by the representatives and Ministers of the late Government is a most unfair accusation to make.
The scheme will be considered on its merits, but it is not part of the Financial Resolutions of the Budget with which we are dealing to-night. We are dealing purely and simply with the tax which the hon. Member has opposed to-day on the
ground that it is an unfair burden upon industry. Let him say that in his constituency.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I tell the hon. and gallant Member that I opposed the petrol impost by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) some years ago, told my constituency, and was returned in spite of that?

Major COLVILLE: In view of the recent happenings in that particular industry the hon. Member will find it a little more difficult to justify his attitude in the House of Commons to-night. On the question of this tax generally, let us recognise that it is a widely spread tax. In view of the fall which has taken place in the world price of oil it is a burden not unduly grievous to bear. Although the intention of it may not be protective, I welcome the effect it has had upon our Scottish industry and upon the production of oil in this country generally. Other measures will he necessary. I am certain of that, but I recognise that as a result of this tax the employment of a large number of men at any rate has been safeguarded for some period until there is a breathing space to examine further measures for their protection.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed.

Ordered, "That Consideration of the remaining Resolutions be now adjourned "—[Captain Margesson.]

Eighth and subsequent Resolutions he considered To-morrow.

NATIONAL DEBT.

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient, to amend the Law relating to the National Debt as follows:

(a) by making provision that in the event of the Vivo per cent. War Loan, 1929 to 1947, becoming repayable, holdings in that loan may, unless application Is made for repayment in cash, he continued subject to a reduction in the rate of interest and modifications in the name and terms of repayment, and in the other
922
conditions and incidents, of the said loan, and in that connection making provision—

(i) for the issue of bonus stock and bonus bonds to form part of the said loan and the payment of cash bonuses;
(ii) for enabling, any expenses incurred in connection with the continuance or redemption of holdings in the said loan (including sums paid on account of any such cash bonus as aforesaid or on account of any interest which, by reason of the continuance or redemption of the said loan, becomes payable in any financial year instead of in the next following financial year) to be defrayed, if the Treasury so direct, out of the Consolidated Fund instead of oat of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt;
(iii) for enabling the 'treasury to borrow, as if under Section one of the War Loan Act, 1919, to meet any such expenses as aforesaid;
(iv) for other matters in connection with the continuance or redemption of holdings in the said loan;
(b) by reducing to three hundred and twenty-two million pounds the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for each of the financial years ending respectively on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, and the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, and providing for the defraying of the whole or any part of the sums required in the said years for the purposes specified in sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) of paragraph (b) of Subsection (4) of Section twenty-three of the Finance Act, 1928, out of money to be borrowed for the purpose as if under Section one of the War Loan Act, 1919, instead of out of the said permanent annual charge;
(c) by making further provision for the issue by the Treasury of securities—

(i) subject to the condition that Income Tax will not lie deducted from the to interest, thereof;
(ii) subject to the condition that in certain cases the capital and in certain cases the interest will be free from taxation;
and with respect to other matters in connection with any securities so issued;
(d) by providing for the repayment through the post to holders outside the British Isles of principal moneys due to them on the redemption of Government stock."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Perhaps I had better just say a few words on this very long Resolution, although I can add little if anything to the observations which I made when referring to this matter in the Budget speech. Its purpose is to empower the Treasury, when they con-
sider the circumstances favourable, to make a conversion of the huge block of £2,000,000,000 of 5 per cent. War Loan. It might be asked why it should be necessary to take legislative powers in regard to this possible conversion when other conversion operations have been carried out in the past under the existing legislative powers. The reason for that is that this will be a very exceptional conversion. It would be very simple if it were the conversion of £200,000,000 or £300,000,000, but when you have a block of £2,000,000,000 you have a very different proposition with which to deal. We are asking for certain legislative authority, but it does not mean that all the powers that are asked for in this Resolution, which will later be incorporated in the Finance Bill, will be exercised. It does not mean when we come to consider the terms of conversion and the prospectus that all the powers in possession of the Treasury will be exercised and employed but it is necessary to take powers.
I believe that there is an impression in some quarters that this Loan, being of such huge dimensions, is not likely to be converted or that it is unlikely that an attempt to convert it will be made for a very long time. Those who are familiar with the conditions of this Loan are well aware that the Government have a right to convert it at three months' notice, but it must be paid off, if it is not converted, before 1947. Then the Government must pay it off by whatever means they may find available at that time. If they cannot issue new stock at that time they will have to find cash. The operation of finding £2,000,000,000 of cash would be one which, I think, would exercise not merely the ingenuity but the power of any Government however strong.
The Members of the Committee will notice that nothing is said in this Resolution as to the financial terms of the conversion offer. Obviously, a statement of that kind could not be made at the present time, but I think that I may go to this extent and say that the Government, or the Treasury, which is the Department and authority responsible, will not consider a conversion scheme unless the effect of it would be to bring a very substantial sum of benefit to the Exchequer in the form of reduced interest. I believe that
I said in my Budget Statement that I had hoped at the middle of this year to launch such a conversion offer, but financial conditions became such as to make it certain that had such a proposal been made at that time, it would not have been successful. But I can add to that by saying that of course the condition of the markets will be followed with closeness and care, and that at the first favourable prospect of a successful operation advantage will be taken of those conditions.
There are two or three conditions, or powers, shall I say, which are in this Resolution and will be embodied in the Finance Bill to which I will refer. I believe that there is an Amendment upon the Paper and it refers, if I remember rightly, to a power taken in this Resolution to exempt from Income Tax certain foreign holders, who are a very considerable number. The holding of 5 per cent. War Loan by foreigners is very considerable. We are asking for the usual powers, and power will be given to exempt from British taxation the converted stock which may be held by foreigners.
We are also taking the power—and again I say that it will not necessarily be used—to continue the practice which applies to the existing War Loan of not deducting tax at the source, but I believe that there is an impression in the minds of some people that that means that British holders of the War Stock will not pay Income Tax. That is not the case. Although it is not payable at the source, they will pay Income Tax in the ordinary way if liable. There are other powers which we are seeking in regard to the safeguarding of trustees and one or two matters of a minor character. In paragraph (b) we are seeking a power which has become necessary owing to the position of the National Debt charges. We are reducing the statutory or rather the fixed Debt charge of £355,000,000 to £322,000,000. This reduction is mainly accounted for by the Hoover plan, which relieves us this year of £13,500,000 for interest and nearly £6,000,000 which is saved in respect of the Sinking Fund on the American debt. Other reductions bring the figure down to £322,000,000.
I am quite sure that there will be no Member of the Committee who will
oppose this Resolution. There is no Member of the Committee who is not anxious that this huge block of war debt should be tackled at the earliest possible moment. It is now carrying a rate of interest higher than the interest on Government stock generally, and it is most important that it should be con- verted. We hear speeches and much talk about the burden of the War debt and attention is always directed to the 5 per cent. War Loan, ignoring the comparatively low rate of interest that is carried by a very large part of our National Debt. I have not had the figures taken out for some months, therefore the figure that I am going to give may not be up to date, but when I did go into the matter I found that the average interest upon the total of our National Debt was only about 3½ per cent.
There is a very considerable block, amounting to £700,000,000 of the old 2½ per cent. Consols, which carries an interest of 2½ per cent. There are other blocks that are not so large, which carry a little more interest to people who bought this stock at a depreciated price. For instance, the 2½ per cent. Consols, now standing at 57, stood at 110 some years ago. I know that there are a great many who bought the stock at that price. Therefore, they have lost about one-half of their capital investment. When people talk about the War Debt, attention is always concentrated upon this large block of £2,000,000,000 5 per cent. War Loan. I am very anxious to grapple with the matter, and I am sure that every Member of the Committee is equally anxious. I do not for a single moment doubt that we should get unanimous support for the Resolution.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much is held abroad?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot say at the moment.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am glad that on one subject, following the rather acrimonious discussions that have taken place since the House re-assembled, we are in a considerable measure of agreement with right hon. and hon. Members opposite. It is a personal satisfaction to me that on the first occasion that I have followed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who for so long was
my chief in the late Government, it should be an occasion on which I am able to agree with him in the proposition that he is putting before the Committee. From this side of the House there is complete agreement with the desire to secure the conversion of Debt. Having regard to the sacrifices that have been demanded from every section of the community, some of us take the view that some definite sacrifice should have been demanded from the holders of Debt. The proposal contained in this Resolution is definitely on a voluntary basis in regard to the future. Although the Government are prepared to break contractual liabilities with regard to persons in receipt of salaries and wages, I suppose that, with their outlook, one cannot expect them to take a similar course with regard to the holders of bonds which are a charge upon the State.
There was one point in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which I was not clear. He said that, on going through the whole of the Debt, he found that the average rate of interest was about 3½ per cent. I should like to know whether that calculation takes into account that part of the Debt on which I believe no interest is paid, because it is held by the Government. It is part of the Debt which is held against the fiduciary issue. I believe that is reckoned as part of the Debt. I do not know whether it nominally pays interest which is repaid, but I imagine that it pays no interest at all.

Mr. SNOWDEN: It does not make any difference.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If it pays no interest and if it is included in the right hon. Gentleman's calculation, it does tend to bring down the average amount of interest. I do not think that stands alone, I think there are other parts of the debt which pay no interest. Coming to the main teat of the Resolution, we fully approve of the principle of converting the 5 per cent. War Loan at the earliest opportunity to a lower level. In so far as the Resolution is for that purpose, it has our full support. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is right in thinking that we shall not oppose this proposal in the Division Lobby. There are, however, one or two points in this somewhat complicated form about which
I am not wholly clear. I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have enlightened us a little more in detail than he did. I notice that in paragraph (a, 1), line 9, it says that provision may be made
for the issue of bonus stock and bonus bonds to form part of the said loan and the payment of cash bonuses.
I am not clear as to what that means. I think it means that if the 5 per cent. War Loan cannot be converted pound for pound into 4 per cent. War Loan it may be that some little additional payment will be made. If the 5 per cent. War Loan stands at 99½ and the 4 per cent. War Loan at 98 it may be necessary to give in addition to pound for pound conversion some slight bonus to make up the balance.

Mr. SNOWDEN: This operation might extend over many months and it may be desirable to offer a bonus to those who convert in the early stages. It might be desirable to give a little bonus for early conversion.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: I am much obliged for the explanation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already explained that the sole object of paragraph (b) relates to the amount paid on account of the American Debt—

Mr. SNOWDEN: And Victory Bonds.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I understand this has to do with the Sinking Fund; that the provisions which are referred to are in order to preserve the stability of the Sinking Fund.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The position is like this. We are not going to provide the full Sinking Fund this year. We are not providing for Victory Bonds tendered for Death Duties which have generally amounted to about £12,500,000, and there is £1,000,000 of the £52,000,000 which is free Sinking Fund and also nearly £6,000,000 of the American Sinking Fund, which will be suspended. Altogether the savings amount to about 220,000,000.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am anxious to be a little more certain with regard to paragraph (c). As I anticipated the Chancellor has said that this relates to foreign bond holders, but there is
nothing in paragraph (c), as it stands, which limits it to foreign bonds. Paragraph (c) (1) refers to the fact that in regard to the present 5 per cent. War Loan tax is not deducted at the source, and it gives the Treasury power, when substituting the new War Loan for the old—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I must point out to the hon. Member that there is an Amendment. on the Order Paper to omit paragraph (c) and it seems to me that the most appropriate place to discuss this matter would be on that Amendment. If the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) proposes to move that Amendment, I cannot admit another discussion on the same topic.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not within the right of any hon. Member who is replying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has moved the full Resolution, to ask questions upon any part of the entire Resolution before any Amendment is moved? It may lead to greater clarity later on if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asked to make clear now what is in the Resolution.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is the point I want to emphasise. I am seeking to elucidate the precise meaning of the Resolution. I appreciate the point that it would be undesirable to argue the question at the moment, but I think it is desirable at this stage that we should have some understanding as to what the Resolution means so that when the time comes the hon. Member will be able to decide whether he will move his Amendment or not.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member confines himself to inquiring what the Chancellor of the Exchequer means he will be in order. I do not wish to have a double discussion on the exact meaning of the Resolution. As long as hon. Members confine themselves entirely to asking what the Resolution means they will be in order.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will endeavour to keep within your Ruling. As I understand it, paragraph (c) (1) relates to the fact that Income Tax is not at present deducted at the source in the case of the 5 per cent. War Loan, and I understand that this provision is to
enable the Treasury to make the same concession in the case of the loan which is to take the place of the 5 per cent. War Loan.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is so.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In regard to paragraph (c) (2), do I understand that in the Finance Bill it will be confined solely to foreign investors?

Mr. SNOWDEN: indicated assent.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That, I think, covers all the points I wanted to raise in connection with the Resolution.

Mr. LOGAN: I am a little interested in this matter, and I want to compliment the Chancellor of the Exchequer on bringing forward a proposal to convert the 1929–1947 stock, but naturally I am most anxious to know from the point of view of various societies how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to go and what he intends to do. I do not want to know all the particulars, I am not anxious to know when the flotation is to take place or what rate per cent. will be allowed, but I imagine that the flotation of the loan will mean a reduction of 1 per cent. There are one or two points which are very germane to the question of this conversion and I trust that the Committee will not consider that I am taking up too much of its time in dealing with some contractual obligations which have been entered into and with some of the difficulties which this conversion will create.
I am not concerned about those who have made wealth, I am concerned about those particular societies, mostly affecting the poor, who have entered into arrangements to guarantee certain benefits. There are trustee investments which many approved societies took up in the 1929–1947 stock, and it naturally follows that if there is any reduction in the amount it is going to interfere with the benefits paid by these particular societies. If there is a drop from 5 per cent. to 4 per cent. it will mean roughly 20 per cent. on the valuation of societies. We have just passed through the third quin-quennial valuation and the Treasury have issued orders to various societies that they can give certain benefits on account of the investments and securities which they hold. I trust that this conversion will be beneficial, I hope that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer will succeed, but I think it is advisable to see what protection can be given before the powers asked for in this Resolution are handed over to the authorities in this matter.
The valuation that has taken place in the Government Department in respect of National Health Insurance has enabled the societies to give certain benefits. If there is a conversion of 5 per cent, loan to 4 per cent. it will certainly mean either the cancellation of extra benefits or that another class of insurance will have to be brought in to make good the loss of 1 per cent. on the investment account. Is it meant that the whole of the National Health Insurance service of the Kingdom is to be dealt with drastically and curtailed simply because the benefit to members will not be allowable? If the calculation of 4 per cent. interest be correct, there must be a corresponding deduction in. the additional benefits given for Health insurance. I do not wish to plead for preferential treatment. When we are dealing with £2,000,000,000 I am convinced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be given the fullest play and ought to have his conversion as early as possible. But no injustice ought to be done.
Is it to be said that oculist treatment, dental treatment and convalescent treatment are to be curtailed? Thousands that I know, the poorest of the poor, will be affected. Is it possible for some grants from the Treasury to be made, or for an arrangement to be made with the Insurance Commissioners, seeing that the State is about to break a contract affecting a loan which has been taken up as a trustee security by the societies? Has there been any consultation in respect of the administration, to see if some readjustment of administration can be brought about to make good the loss to the approved societies I ask these questions not in any spirit of carping criticism. I have been associated for long with this class of business, in running a society and managing the funds, and I know what I am talking about. I want to see these benefits continued. I hope that the Chancellor will give careful consideration to the point raised and will see that some redress is given to members of approved societies.

Mr. MACLEAN: In the event of a conversion loan, does the Chancellor not intend to reduce the amount of interest below the sum mentioned in line 28 of the Resolution?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I do not under stand what the hon. Member means.

Mr. MACLEAN: In the resolution, the right hon. Gentleman says:
by reducing to three hundred and twenty-two million pounds the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for each of the financial years ending respectively….

Mr. SNOWDEN: The words "permanent annual charge" are the words that are incorporated in all Finance Acts dealing with the Debt charge, and include interest and Sinking Fund. In regard to the way in which these figures are made up I have already tried to answer a question. I will try to make it a little plainer and this will be an answer to the hon. Member's Amendment if he moves it later. I explained that the £355,000,000 in this year's Finance Bill as the fixed charge is reduced by three items, Victory Bonds, suspension of the Sinking Fund to America and the dropping of £1,000,000 that we had as free Sinking Fund. The Sinking Fund now was £52,000,000, or something like that. By those reductions that I have mentioned it is reduced to £32,500,000. There will be required as interest £289,500,000, and that makes up the £322,000,000.

Mr. MACLEAN: The amount of the interest you wish to reduce to is £289,500,000? The other items that you mentioned make up the total of £322,000,000?

Mr. SNOWDEN: One word more. In this figure of interest, I have taken no account this year of any saving in the reduction of interest. I think I explained that in my Budget Speech.

Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in line 23, to leave out the words "three hundred and twenty-two" and to insert instead thereof the words "two hundred."
My reason for doing so is that in the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister and the supporters of the Government we are passing through a financial crisis and sacrifices have to be made. Already sacrifices have been imposed by the vote
of this House upon certain sections of the community. As the Chancellor is well aware a few of us in this party have, for a number of years, advocated the necessity of examining the War Loans of this country with a view to reducing the interest upon them. We have put forward as our argument for reducing the rate of interest on our War Loans, the very argument which was used by the Prime Minister as a justification for imposing a 10 per cent. cut upon the unemployed, namely, that there has been a fall in the cost of living. We pointed out that, as there had been such a fall, a fixed interest on War Loan meant that the recipients of that interest were now enjoying greater value in the spending power of their money, than they had when the country was in such dire necessity and when they were invited to subscribe to these loans at high rates of interest.
We were constantly met, however, with the argument, "You cannot break a contract." We were told that a contract had been entered into between the lenders of the money and the State to whom the money had been lent; that that contract could not be broken and that the interest must continue to be paid at the same rate. I have been interested to-night to hear part of the Chancellor's explanation. I apologise for not having been here to hear all of it but this matter came up sooner than we anticipated. I was also interested to hear the reply of the hon. Member for West. Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) who was Financial Secretary to the Treasury under the late Government. Their speeches were practically admissions that what we had been saying in the past on this matter was justified at that time. The Chancellor opposed our ideas in 1921, 1922 and 1923 at the Labour party conferences when we moved resolutions to reduce the War Loan interest. He and the hon. Member for West Leicester appear now to have come round to the point of view which we then advocated. I notice that the Chancellor smiles, but had they accepted our proposals at that time and had the country accepted our proposals this financial crisis would never have arisen and this Government would never have been necessary.
This Government has introduced a Bill which asks Parliament to give it powers
to break the very contractual obligations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer formerly held up to us as sacred contracts which could not be broken. If a breach of contract was involved at that time, then the Economy Bill is a breach of contract. The reduction of teachers' salaries is a breach of contract. The reduction of the wages of Navy men is a breach of contract. The whole of the Government's national economy scheme is built up on breaches of contracts made by the State with most of the population who are going to suffer from the proposals. Why talk of breaches of contract? These are breaches of honour as well. If it is not a breach of contract to pass a Bill of that kind to-day, then it would have been no breach of contract in 1921 to have put a similar measure into operation in this country in regard to War Loan interest. The Chancellor has told us that the average rate of interest over the entire debt of £7,000,000,000 is 3½ per cent. In that figure, I take it, are included certain items upon which no interest is being paid and also Consols upon which 2½ per cent. is being paid. On something like.£2,000,000,000 5 per cent. is at present being paid. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of 3½ per cent. average interest as something which might be considered rather moderate. It is all very nice to discuss these things, according to averages, but averages do not always work out in the proper way.
In order to get away from the contractual obligations and induce people who at present hold bonds to yield up those bonds and accept others at a lower rate of interest, the right hon. Gentleman proposes, according to his explanation to offer a bonus. In his own words, he is willing to give a bonus to the people who agree to yield up their contractual right to receive interest at 5 per cent. or whatever the rate may be on the particular class of loan held by them. That is to say he is going to give them a bonus if they care to yield up their 5 per cent. bonds and take bonds in a lower category, say, 4 per cent. Why is not a bonus being offered to the teachers to give up their rights according to their contractual obligation to the State? Why is not a bonus being offered to any of the other classes who are being compelled—not asked but compelled—to yield up their contractual obligations and rights.
I ask hon. Members to read the report of this Debate to-morrow and to contrast the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the speech of the hon. Member for West Leicester accepting that explanation with the speeches which they made on former occasions at Labour party conferences on this subject. A committee was set up by the Labour party to examine the proposal—that was a resolution which I put to the Edinburgh Congress in 1922—and I would ask hon. Members to refer to the report of that committee of which the hon. Member for West Leicester was a member. It will be found that in the statements which have been made tonight by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the hon. Member for West Leicester, they have now come round to the view which we advocated and have come down on the side which we advocated in 1921 and 1922. I hope that to-night the Labour Members in this House will, if I take this to a Division, follow me into the Lobby, as some of them did upon another occasion, about eight years ago, when on an Amendment that I moved and divided the House upon I tried to get a reduction in the rate of interest.
This is no new idea with me. [Interruption.] I am glad of that interruption by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). The friendly and the health societies undoubtedly may suffer hardship under my proposal, but the hon. Member has to bear in mind that before the War trustee stock was put out at a lower rate per cent. than is the case at present. The amount was raised because of what was looked upon as the dearer price of money, and want to put it to him that it is much better for the nation as a whole to save a sum of £150,000,000 or even £200,000,000 per year in interest upon War Loan than that £10,000,000 should be spent even in additional benefits to members of health societies. The greater saving is to the greater number, and it would be looked upon as a very selfish method of approaching the question that the interests of a small number of the community who required teeth, or glasses, or other additional benefit given by health societies, should be put upon a higher pinnacle than those of
the nation as a whole. I trust that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he replies, will indicate that he intends to accept my Amendment, if not completely, at least to the extent of reducing the amount that stands in the

orginal Resolution by a considerable sum.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 185.

Division No. 474.]
AYES. 
[8.59 p.m. 


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Albery, Irving James
Dawson, Sir Philip
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dixey, A. C.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Aske, Sir Robert
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Atkinson, C.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Balniel, Lord
England, Colonel A.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Beaumont, M. W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lymington, Viscount


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Ferguson, Sir John
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Fielden, E. B.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Birkett, W. Norman
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Blindell, James
Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macquisten, F. A.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Boyce, Leslie
Ganzoni, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bracken, B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gillett, George M.
Markham, S. F.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Glassey, A. E.
Meller, R. J.


Buchan, John
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Millar, J. D.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Butler, R. A.
Gray, Milner
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Campbell, E. T.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Carver, Major W. H.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Muirhead, A. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Blrm., W.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Connor, T. J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Christie, J. A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Church, Major A. G.
Hanbury, C,
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harbord, A.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harris, Percy A.
Penny, Sir George


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hartington, Marquess of
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Haslam, Henry C.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Colman, N. C. D.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Colville, Major D. J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pybus, Percy John


Cooper, A. Duff
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ramsbotham, H.


Cowan, D. M.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cranborne, Viscount
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remer, John R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hunter Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ross, Ronald D.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Southby, Commander A. R.J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Salmon, Major I.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wells, Sydney R.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
White, H. G.


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Savery, S. S.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Scott, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Womersley, W. J.


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Train, J.
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Turton, Robert Hugh



Smithers, Waldron
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Viscount Elmley.


NOES.


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Arnott, John
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Pole, Major 0. G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hicks, Ernest George
Potts, John S.


Ayles, Walter
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Price, M. P.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Raynes, W. R.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hoffman, P. C.
Richards, R.


Barr, James
Hopkin, Daniel
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Horrabin, J. F.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfleld)
Romerll, H. G.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Isaacs, George
Rowson, Guy


Bowen, J. W.
Jenkins, Sir William
Sandham, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Scurr, John


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sherwood, G. H.


Brooke, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Shield, George William


Brothers, M,
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Shillaker, J. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kinley, J.
Simmons. C. J.


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sinkinson, George


Burgess, F. G.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey Rotherhlthe)


Cameron, A. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cape, Thomas
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sorensen, R.


Chater, Daniel
Leach, W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Stephen, Campbell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Strauss, G. R.


Compton, Joseph
Leonard, W.
Sullivan, J.


Cove, William G.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sutton, J. E.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Longbottom, A. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Daggar, George
Longden, F.
Toole, Joseph


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
Tout, W, J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McElwee, A.
Townend, A. E.


Devlin, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Vaughan, David


Dukes, C.
McKinlay, A.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, Charles
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunnico, H.
McShane, John James
Walker, J.


Ede, James Chuter
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wallace, H. W.


Edmunds, J. E.
Manning, E. L.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mansfield, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Marcus, M,
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Egan, W. H.
Marley, J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Marshall, Fred
Welsh, James Paisley)


Gill, T. H.
Mathers, George
West, F. R.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Westwood, Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins)
Messer, Fred
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grundy, Thomas w.
Morley, Ralph
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, Or. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mort, D. L.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Murnin, Hugh
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Naylor, T. E.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wise, E. F.


Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Oldfield, J. R.
Young, R. S. (Islington. North)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Haycock, A. W.
Pal[...]n, John Henry



Hayday, Arthur
Paling, Wilfrid
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayes, John Henry
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Mr. Nell Maclean and Mr. Mills.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Perry, S. F.

Mr. WISE: I beg to move, in line 33, to leave out paragraph (c).
The object of this paragraph is to permit the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with the question of conversion, to issue stock which bears the condition either that Income Tax is not deducted at the source, or that it is in some cases entirely free from taxation. Before dealing with the particular point covered by that paragraph, it will be relevant to explain its relation to my attitude to the whole question of conversion. The Chancellor, we know, has been for years obsessed by the hope and desire of carrying out a great conversion operation. The fame of Mr. Goschen seems to have exercised a deplorable fascination for him. As far as one can tell, a great deal of the inexplicable financial policy of the last two years, and of the Treasury before that time, has been due to this obsession of the vital importance of carrying through a conversion operation. We on these benches, of course, have no objection to any process by which the burden of National Debt is reduced, but the effect of that desire over a period of years to secure favourable conditions for a conversion operation has undoubtedly been expressed to a very large measure in the policy of deflation which has ruined the industries of this country and added hundreds of thousands to our unemployed; it has largely brought this country and the world—because the world to a lerge extent has been guided in its financial policy by the policy of London—to their present pass.
It is fair, then, to examine what real advantage has been purchased if a conversion operation is possible at so heavy a price. It is plain that the financial advantages to the Budget which might come from a successful conversion operation are grossly exaggerated and have been grossly exaggerated. They could have been won in a much more direct and effective manner. The actual amount of 5 per cent. stock which falls due for repayment in the period between 1931 and 1940 is about £2,000,000,000 at 5 per cent., and no one supposes that in the most favourable conditions in the last three years, or in any possible conditions in the next year, or still less in the short period of office which we understand this Government expects for itself—or at
any rate, some section of the party opposite—no one supposes that the rate of interest at which a voluntary conversion scheme would be possible would be lower than 4 per cent. The probability is that the Government would be very fortunate if it dropped as low as 4¼ or even 4 ½ per cent.
Take 4 per cent.; the maximum saving, if the whole of this issue is converted, would be about £20,000,000. It is quite certain, since the Government proposed to do it on a voluntary basis and to give the option to those who hold the stock to decide whether or not they will come into the conversion operation, that not more than three-quarters of that stock would be converted, but if the whole were converted the maximum saving would be only £20,000,000. From that you have to deduct the loss in Income Tax and Super-tax, so probably the maximum saving would be somewhere in the nature of £15,000,000 or £16,000,000. That is the only gain to the Treasury by which the Chancellor has apparently sought to justify his policy in regard to the money market for these two or three years which has landed us to a very large extent into the present trouble in which we find ourselves.

Mr. COCKS: It is entirely the fault of the Chancellor.

Mr. WISE: I have never been able to understand the difference which the City seems to feel exists, and which apparently hon. Members opposite seem to feel exists between the manipulation of the market which has been attempted during these years for the purpose of securing a voluntary conversion operation, and a direct conversion which would do the thing cleanly and properly and with great advantage to the Treasury. Moreover, if we have this conversion operation it is to apply only to about a quarter of the existing National Debt. The rest of the war debt does not fall due for possible repayment, and, therefore, conversion, in the next year or two.
I remember that a year or two ago, when the party which now sits on the benches opposite below the Gangway produced a report—I forget whether it was a pink or a yellow book—on the industrial recovery of this country, one of the items to which they attached the greatest importance was strong measures
for reducing the burden on the country on account of the undeserved and unearned increment which came to the holders of War debt owing to the drop in prices. That was two years ago, and prices have dropped a great deal since then. They said then that the holders of the War debt were getting the equivalent of at least £90,000,000 a year more than they were entitled to on a reasonable arid equitable interpretation of the terms of the contract, and the amount which comes to them now in purchasing power must be very much greater on account of the further drop in price. Compared with the amount that they ought to disgorge—£150,000,000 or so—to bring them into parity with the prices at which the loan was made, this saving of £15,000,000 or so on this conversion operation is niggardly, and certainly not worth the trouble that has been taken and will have to be taken if conditions are to be produced in which a voluntary conversion is possible.
Let me pass to the special point raised in paragraph (c). In order to carry through the, process, the Chancellor proposes to give exemption of a perfectly general kind, so far as the Resolution goes, both to British and foreign holders of these particular securities—exemptions from the burden of having the Income Tax deducted at the source, and in sonic cases, also, exemption from Income Tax altogether. Two commissions or committees have, in the last 10 years, examined the wisdom, from the national point of view, of granting such exemption. The Royal Commission on the Income Tax in 1919, after going most carefully into the problem, decided that to give exemption from Income Tax as part of the inducement to persuade one to buy a particular sort of Government stock was an extremely bad bargain for the State. It was a gamble on the part of the individual taxpayer as to what the rate of Income Tax might be in a few years' time, as to what his own income might be and the rate of tax leviable upon him; and they decided unanimously that in that gambling transaction the State always got the worst of the bargain.
Moreover, just at this moment, when it is perfectly plain that, whichever Government is in power further taxation of high Income Tax payers is inevitable, an offer
to persons to put themselves in a, position in which they can ride out of their proper responsibilities and their proper duties to the State is thoroughly undesirable and contrary to the public interest. The temptation to those persons of whom we heard at Question Time who are busily occupied in making the position of the Exchequer more difficult by putting their money abroad would probably be irresistible. The Committee on the National Debt in 1927 came to exactly the same conclusion. They examined the question again, and they entirely endorsed that conclusion. They endorsed it not only as regards exemption from liability to deduction of tax at the source but also in regard to exemption from liability to pay Income Tax. The only case which might offer some conceivable justification is that of a foreign holder, and, as we understand from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, it is the foreign holder primarily that he has in his mind.
In that case, I would like to ask whoever is to reply why that point has been left out of the Resolution. We are to vote on the Resolution as it stands, and as it stands it will give the Treasury power to grant exemption from Income Tax not only to the foreign holder but to the British holder too. The best that the Committee on the National Debt could say about granting exemption for the benefit of the foreign owner was that it facilitated investment in safe English securities by those British subjects who, in order to avoid taxation, take themselves and their capital abroad. Surely that is not a desirable object, even in these days. We do not want to facilitate in any way the removal of capital from this country. This paragraph of the Resolution, with the alleviations and conditions which the Treasury would be able to give, would facilitate an operation which would be thoroughly undesirable from every point of view.
There is the case, admittedly, of the foreigner who invests money in the security of this country and finds it difficult to recover taxation which has been deducted at the source. The only circumstance in which that has any economic value at all is when he invests money in Government securities instead of industrial securities, but at this moment I do not know that the foreigner
wishes to invest in this country, and I am not sure that in present circumstances it is very desirable for him to do so. We have learned a great deal in the last few weeks about the inconveniences and the dangers attending that position. Things would be easier for us now if he had not had an inducement to keep his money in Government stock but to put it instead into industrial securities.
In any case I do not see that there is any reason to give special exemption to foreigners, and no reason at all to give them to our own nationals. They are exemptions which have been condemned by the Inland Revenue, by the two commissions or committees which have examined elaborately the Income Tax arrangements of this country in the last 10 years, and further, it is contrary to public policy to give the Treasury power to make these conditions in this conversion operation, whenever it is carried through. If I am told that in that case we cannot persuade the foreigner to convert on easy terms, at any rate there is no reason to pay more for several years. In the form in which it appears on the Paper, and with all the general disadvantages which are behind this proposal—unless the explanations from the Treasury Bench are very much more satisfactory than have been accorded us up to the present—we shall certainly vote against the paragraph.

Major ELLIOT: No one who heard the hon. Member explaining his position on this Amendment could deny (a) that he had been a civil servant, and (b) that he had been an extremely able civil servant. He put the view of the bureaucracy with almost perfect lucidity. It was a shame that people should be able to get their money away from the Treasury, much more convenient if the Treasury could get at everybody's money first. How awkward it was that foreigners—these nasty people—should be able to get their money paid over to them without the Treasury having the full power of taking the money first. How much more convenient if the Treasury could impound the money and the foreigner have to show reason why he should get it back! These are all immensely powerful reasons, but from whose point of view? From the point
of view of the Treasury. My only defence and argument against the hon. Member is that he is not trying to raise a Conversion Loan. The people who are trying to carry through a Conversion Loan must not look only to all the advantages that it gives to themselves. They have got to look at the points that attract people to convert. It is for that reason that we desire to consider the conditions which will make the loan attractive. I would ask the hon. Member to consider it from that point of view as well as from the point of view of that idealistic age which he desires when we shall all live in that Treasury heaven where no one will draw dividends for anything anywhere except with the written consent of the Treasury and on the understanding that they should not be spent, but should at once be reinvested.
The ordinary man, when asked to invest, looks at the conditions on which he is asked to entrust his money by the persons who ask that they should have this money lent to them. The privilege—for it is a privilege—of allowing the issue of securities, which are not subject to deduction at the source, is a privilege which has been already extended to the holders of these securities, and it well may be that it may not be possible to get them to exchange except into securities which offer them similar privileges. The hon. Member said that this was a very vague proposal, that these were general conditions—too general conditions—giving power to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Treasury to allow Income Tax not to be deducted in certain cases, and to allow people outside the country to have certain other privileges. The specific proposals will appear in the Finance Bill. All we are asked to pass now is a Resolution giving authority for the drafting and introduction into this House of the Bill. What the proposals are that we shall have to consider will be enshrined in the terms of the Bill, and I suggest to the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) that he should await the detailed proposals which will be set forth in the Clauses of the Bill when it is introduced.
I can give him roughly now the purpose of the proposals. Securities will he exempt from tax only as long as the securities are in the beneficial ownership
of persons not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and capital will be exempt only as long as the securities are in the beneficial ownership of persons not domiciled or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. These are the customary provisions, and the 5 per cent. War Loan and the 4 per cent. Loan were issued on these, terms. The hon. Member says that this is a very bad proposal and that he is opposed to the principle underlying it, because, says he, we have seen in recent days what a great inconvenience it is to have foreigners investing their money in this country. Is it from the foreigner who has money thus invested in this country that we are suffering inconvenience? I thought that we were suffering from the short-term money. The idea that we suffer similar inconvenience from long-term money in this country has certainly not been put forward with anything like the same vehemence. The hon. Member for East Leicester, however, says to the foreigner, "You thug, you brute, you criminal, to come and invest your money here."

Mr. WISE: The hon. and gallant Member must not exercise a very active and lurid imagination on the lines of Edgar Wallace.

Major ELLIOT: I am anxious to understand the hon. Member's point. The hon. Member was arguing that the foreigner who had invested money here was the man who had aided to produce the financial disturbance and crisis from which we have suffered in the last few weeks—

Mr. WISE: I was referring to foreign money here. As a matter of fact, in the last few weeks it has been short-term money, but the hon. Member is aware that the real apprehension of the next few weeks may be long-term money.

Major ELLIOT: All I can say is that I hope that the hon. Member will not make too many speeches of the kind to which we have just listened, or he will reinforce that apprehension to a certain extent. We all agree that this money has not so far proved a menace to us. It is the short-term loans. So far, we have had no quarrel with the long-term loans.

Mr. SANDHAM: You are feeling the draught.

Major ELLIOT: I cannot enter into controversy, especially on a subject like this, with the hon. Member, who has proved his redoubtable qualities on every opportunity. No one who desires to get his proposals through the House will wantonly trail his coat before the sonorous and floriferous hon. Member. This is a Resolution on which the Bill is to be drafted, and on the details of that Bill detailed criticism can justly be offered. What we are discussing here is the general principle from which the details will proceed. The general principle is that a power, which has existed in the past, shall continue in the future. We are all agreed that the utilisation of this power has in the past been of greater advantage to the holders of the loan than to the Treasury that issues the loan. We are also agreed that the person who is issuing the loan has got to take account of the opinions of the investors.

Mr. McSHANE: The foreigner.

Major ELLIOT: The foreigner and the home investor and—

Mr. WISE: Yes, but the hon. and gallant Member says that this is to apply to persons not ordinarily resident in this country. I am saying that the Government are adopting their usual practice in those loans of consulting the views of the foreigner.

Major ELLIOT: As the foreigner holds a, good deal of this loan already, the last thing the Treasury wishes is that the foreigner should come rushing to the Treasury to demand the whole of his money back. We have got to take into account the foreign investor and all investors. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) made a powerful speech a few minutes ago—

Mr. WISE: He is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.

Major ELLIOT: He is an example of the persons whose opinions we need take into account. My objection to the hon. Member's speech as a whole was that it was delivered in vacuo. It did not refer to the question immediately under discussion of how the Conversion Loan should be carried through. Of course, he dealt with the wider question whether it would not be much better not to have a Conversion Loan, but to repudiate a
greater or lesser part of the interest on the loan. That is a subject which it would not be in order to discuss at this moment and into which certainly I am not to be drawn. I hope that the hon. Member is content with these explanations though, if there are further explanations he desires me to give, I shall be glad to do so. On the question of principle, I am afraid that it would be useless for us to try to convert each other across the Floor of the House. I ask that, on this question of a Resolution authorising the Chancellor to introduce a Bill, he should allow it to pass and allow us to bring in the Bill and then launch his criticism against it.

Mr. WISE: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not propose to give these special facilities and conditions to persons, as he put it, not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, but to British subjects who have gone abroad.

Major ELLIOT: I think that question shows that the hon. Member requires to work it out more in detail. Surely he does not suggest that these persons have gone abroad for the purpose of escaping taxation. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) goes abroad, and we all go abroad.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I agreed with one part of the Financial Secretary's speech when he warned hon. Members about tile effect of their speeches on credit. He referred to what had been said by the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) as to possible pressure in regard to long term loans. I wish he would address that warning to those who sit on the Treasury Bench. What has been the principal feature of these Debates during the last fortnight? It is that the stout patriots, in matters of this kind, are on this side of the House, and that the pessimists, who seem to be seeing good in every other country but their own, are sitting behind the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I wish on matters of this kind hon. Members opposite would take a leaf out of the book of the Labour party and put their country first. The proposals which are now before us will only continue the trouble with which we are faced; in fact they will bring about more trouble.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us that it is necessary
to persuade people to convert, and he offers them certain inducements to do so. May I respectfully suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that cannot be done by offering exemptions from taxation or little advantages in the terms of issue. You will not succeed in carrying conversion through by appealing merely to cupidity. I remember what happened in the case of the Victory Loan. At that time, in a year of peace, we were faced with a deficit of some £360,000,000, and not a mere £120,000,000, or £170,000,000, as is the case at the present time. The sum of about £360,000,000 was the amount of the Budget deficit when the present First Lord was Chancellor of the Exchequer in a year of peace. At that time people were nervous, and did hot know what was going to happen. They had lent tremendously during the War and were war weary. Many thought a new domestic loan could not be raised. At that time the Victory Loan was got through, by an appeal to patriotism, made with great success. To-day the circumstances are not dissimilar.
The hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) has more than once, during the last fortnight, appealed to the Government to do that sort of thing now instead of suggesting exemptions from taxation and other inducements for conversion. [Interruption.] You should appeal to our own people now on grounds of high patriotism, and on the ground that you have to loosen this country from the thrall of the foreign usurer. This Government has been showing weakness and timidity and adopting an attitude of defeatism. We should not allow usurers and speculators in New York and Paris to dictate to us how our Parliament should levy taxation on the people. Why should they dictate to us in that way? That is the appeal that will open the purse of the public. The Secretary for Mines will see what. I mean before we are through with this business. If you appeal to the people of this country to get the old country out of this mess, so that it may no longer have to bow down and take orders from usurers in Paris and New York, you will get your conversion loan. I fear that the present Government will not have the courage, the imagination, the "guts" to do that. The real patriots in this matter are on
this side of the House. In a few weeks' time we shall be the Government, and we will do it.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I only want to take up one statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and that is as to there being an attitude of defeatism on this side of the House, while all the patriots are sitting on that side. The hon. and gallant Member's brain works slowly; he is about two or three months behind. Then the patriots were on that side of the House, and the defeatists on this side. He said that the party on this side were responsible for the crisis—that they had brought it about—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of who is responsible for the crisis cannot possibly arise on this Amendment.

Captain BALFOUR: I have no wish to get out of order, and I will abide by your Ruling and will not pursue that line, but will simply say that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member ill become the row of scarlet runners whom we see on the other side.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I do not suppose that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury imagined that the reply he made to this Amendment would convince us; but even his caricature of the speech of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) was more convincing than the case which he stated against the hon. Member. I want to put the issue in very simple and clear terms. The Government have set out to balance the Budget. In our national expenditure there are two items. One is £300,000,000 which is paid in interest to those who hold War Loan, and the other is £100,000,000 which is a State contribution towards the cost of the maintenance of those who are unemployed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot raise the whole question on this Amendment. The sole question that is before the Committee is whether the Treasury should or should not have power to make an issue, (a) not deducting Income Tax at the source, (b) in certain cases free of Income Tax. The general question of conversion does not now arise.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I am sorry; I was trying to follow the arguments previously used in this discussion, but I will apply myself absolutely to the terms of the Amendment. The proposal in this Resolution is a bribe to those who now hold War Loan, with a view to their accepting the proposals for conversion. I want to oppose this proposal of a bribe, on the ground that, when the Government was faced with a deficit, it ought to have treated those who hold War Loan with the same ruthlessness as it treated others at whose expense it was economising. If it can break a contract in the case of teachers, police, or sailors of the armed forces, there was no earthly reason why it should not break a contract in the case of those who hold War Loan.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must again point out to the hon. Member that no question of contract arises on the Amendment before the Committee. The sole question is whether the Treasury should or should not have power to issue fresh securities either subject or not subject to Income Tax. The rest of the hon. Member's argument does not arise.

Mr. BROCKWAY: What I want to suggest is that this proposal is a bribe in order to get those who hold War Loan to agree to conversion proposals, and surely I am entitled to argue that, instead of offering a bribe far that purpose, the Government ought to have taken its courage into its hands and used the same pressure upon the bondholders as it has used in the case of the teachers, the police and the armed forces. That is the case that I want to put very strongly. As I understand it, the fear of the Minister is that unless this bribe is offered he will not be successful in getting his Conversion Loan—that there must be some monetary prize as a reward for responding to the needs of the nation at this time, because otherwise the bondholders will go on strike and refuse to assist the nation. The bondholders are to be permitted to do that, but the sailors are put under arrest when they venture to do a similar thing. If that kind of pressure is to be exerted in the case of one class of persons, we ask that that kind of pressure should be applied in the case of the financial classes as well. That is the simple principle behind this Amendment, and the Government will have to defend
this Clause much more effectively if they are to convince us that the Amendment ought to be withdrawn.

Lieut.-Colonal Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will do my best to confine myself strictly to the terms of the Amendment. I look upon this conversion loan as a matter of expediency. We have this gigantic sum of £2,000,000,000, which we wish to convert into a loan bearing a lower rate of interest, so as to relieve the finances of this country. Of course it is perfectly possible to default on this loan—to refuse to pay any interest at all; but that is not the way in which this country has handled its finances, and I am not at all sure whether it would be to the advantage of this country to conduct its financial business on those lines in the future. [Interruption.] It is, of course, a matter of opinion. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think it would be in this country's interest to default on that loan, all I can say is that I most cordially and sincerely disagree with them; hut, as regards re-funding this loan at a lower rate of interest, I agree that it would be an ideal thing to do.
With regard to the question whether we should or should not pay the interest on that loan free of Income Tax, that again is a matter of opinion. One of the difficulties which have stood in the way of converting this loan hitherto has been the uncertainty of the amount of the loan that is held abroad in the hands, if you like, of the usurers in Paris and New York. It is perfectly true, as I have said, that we could refuse to pay those usurers anything at all, but I do not think it would be to our advantage to do so. Furthermore, if we wished to convert this loan, it seems to me that it would be in our interest to get these usurers, if you like, to accept a lower rate of interest rather than demand repayment—that is, if hon. Members opposite think it is better to repay them than to default. I happen to know that it would only be with very great difficulty that you could get these usurers, if you like, to subscribe to a loan, or accept in exchange for the existing loan securities the interest on which is not paid free of Income Tax, principally because they have not the least idea to what fancy heights Income Tax may be raised in this country. Therefore, if we wish to per-
suade these foreign holders to convert into a security bearing a lower rate of interest, it is in our interest to offer them that percentage of interest, whatever it is, free of Income Tax. If we do not do so, I think we shall be faced with a demand almost universally from foreign holders of War Loan that they will nut accept I he conversion that is offered them and will demand repayment.

Mr. PRICE: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman understands our position on these benches. There is no question whatever of our advocating default of any portion of the National Debt. What we say is that contracts should be treated alike. We have engaged in certain social contracts with pensioners, the unemployed and others. We have also contracts with bondholders. In the case of the unemployed, we cut the contracts about and alter them without any compunction. The other contracts we regard as sacred. I have here a copy of the National Economy Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As I have pointed out before, the only question that arises on this Amendment is whether or not the Treasury have power to issue securities from which either Income Tax is not deducted at the source or which are free of Income Tax. The question of other economies, or the general question of conversion, does not arise.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I quite understand, Sir, but I was not going to raise that question at all. My point is that there is in the Economy Bill a provision for the modification and termination of statutory or contractual rights, obligations and restrictions subsisting at the date when the order takes effect. If a provision can be put in for dealing with contracts for unemployment and social services, similar measures can be taken for dealing with contracts of bondholders. We say contracts should be treated alike, whether with the poorest of the poor or with bondholders. The point we are discussing is whether this bribe to the bondholders is the correct way in which we should bring about conversion. I wish the Government had considered what one of our Dominions in a similar position is doing. The Labour Government of Mr. Scullin in Australia has had the courage
to stand up to the bondholders and has adopted very much more stringent measures than this Government has attempted to do. They have instituted a measure of compulsion in their conversion. They have not offered bribes like this. They have offered to the holders of £500,000,000 of the internal debt of Australia certain conditions involving a reduction of interest. They have appealed to their patriotism, and that appeal has met with a remarkable response. But at the back of it there has been a threat of compulsion and, if it does not go through voluntarily, compulsion will be used. That is the spirit that we should have liked to see the Government adopt if they are going to take steps to lower the burden of the National Debt. There is another way. That is to impose a special tax upon gilt edged—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That cannot possibly arise on this Amendment. If I have to call the hon. Member to order again, I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. PRICE: I was not going to develop that argument. All I wished to do was to point out the various methods of conversion and to maintain that there are other methods than those which the Government have undertaken. I had no intention of disobeying your Ruling, Sir. But we are not going to sit by and see contracts with the unemployed dealt with in this manner. I am informed that a portion of the money that is now being lent to this country by France is English money which has gone over there and is being re-lent at a higher rate. That is why we are not going to sit idly by and see this sort of thing.

Mr. HOFFMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) said the whole reason why this conversion is proposed to be done in this way is a matter of expediency. I have noticed that, whenever financial interests are dealt with at all, they are dealt with very mildly, very nicely and very kindly on grounds of expediency. When the nation was troubled in the early days of the War and the country had to come to the rescue of the moneyed powers of the country by creating its own currency in paper and
the nation had to go and ask in addition to that for War Loan, they said, "Yes, at the usual rate of interest." Human life was conscripted, but money was not. We are now in a similar difficulty. We have been told repeatedly, almost hysterically, that the nation's difficulties are equal to those that we had to face in the early days of 1914.
A part of the proposal is that a little later on there shall be a conversion, and, when that conversion takes place, some velvet-gloved hand is going to be used in the interest of the bondholders. I am going to make my own personal protest. In my opinion, we shall be able to make this conversion without giving any of these facilities to the bondholder. The bondholder has already done exceedingly well within the last few years. The cost of living and the price of commodities have fallen tremendously. We have been informed that the 1925 conversion to gold parity has added over £1,000,000,000 to the bondholders alone, and, since then, the fall in the cost of living has tremendously improved these holdings. In those circumstances it is a painful thing that the bondholders should be enticed to come into a new conversion scheme.
I do not want to be unduly pessimistic. If you, Sir, have been privileged to be upstairs to-day, you have heard a very well-known economist, Mr. John Maynard Keynes, giving rather a painful view as to what is likely to happen. Indeed, it is freely being stated that even yet we may have to go off gold entirely, and, if we do, I cannot imagine this country standing idly by and allowing the bondholders to get away as easily as they have done in the past. In my humble opinion, they will be called upon to make very much greater sacrifices than any conversion scheme can possibly cause them to do. I, therefore, utter my protest against this method of dealing with the bondholders.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I have never listened to a greater fallacy, repeated time after time, about the value of the pound in regard to the question of the National Debt. I will give my view in this way. The National Debt is now £7,500,000,000, of which £1,000,000,000 is due to the United
States. If the hon. Gentleman tells us that the average bondholder to-day—and that is the basis of his argument—is receiving in interest or repayment something of much greater value than he put into the National Debt, he is under a misapprehension.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Resolution only deals with the issue of bonds either free of Income Tax or with the tax deducted at the source. If we start upon a discussion of the position of bondholders we shall never finish this Debate.

Mr. SAMUEL: I wish to obey your Riding. All I will say is that I shall support the Motion which is before the House, and that I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, who said he should oppose it, with regard to the value of the pound, because it is not an honest argument and not based upon fact.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: I do not share the rather optimistic view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) upon the subject of the moneylender or investor. I do not think that any appeal to his patriotism is going to result in very much. In the Motion as put down enabling the Treasury to issue Conversion bonds, the Government have not taken my view that the investor is not to he trusted. They would like, if they could, to have left out the particular provision that the Income Tax should not be deducted at the source. Everybody who has had anything to do with Government loans knows that every official, from the Income Tax gatherer down to the banks concerned, would almost go on his hands and knees and ask that in future the Government should make no issue from which the tax was not deducted at the source, the reason being that the door is open wide for the investor to escape his share of contributions to the national expenditure. I should have thought it more important to have kept that particular feature of War Loan warrants out than to seize a chance of reducing the interest upon the War Loan by 1 per cent.
The truth is that everyone knows that there are a large number of holders of War bonds, the tax upon which is not
deducted at the source. Every tax gatherer knows it. Some of the bondholders go abroad to avoid it. Some of them manage to keep themselves well out of sight when the Income Tax returns are being scattered about, and they escape. A large number of people, to my certain knowledge, escape their share of paying the tax due upon those bonds. I consider that this is an opportunity lost. It is suggested that the Treasury may be able to issue, when a favourable moment arrives, a new Conversion Loan, and it would be an excellent opportunity to get rid of the objectionable feature of that large number of warrants which up to the present have created so much trouble among the tax-gatherers and other officials. Most of it relates to the issue of the 5 per cent. War Loan which is repayable in 1947. I should like to know how much of the interest upon that loan really comes back to the Treasury. In my opinion a large amount escapes, and here is an opportunity to make the position much more watertight. Now comes the difficulty. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull appears to think that you could appeal to the patriotism of the people who are showing their patriotism to-day by cutting other people's salaries, honestly to pay their Income Tax on their warrants in respect of War Loans. I am afraid that the result would be very small.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: rose—

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: I do not want to be interrupted. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull is in the picture often enough, and he might allow me to make my point without these continual disturbances. I wish to point out that if the patriotism of these people, which has been so loudly proclaimed, was available on this occasion, I am sure the Treasury would not hesitate for a moment to see that the new issue should contain the proviso that the tax should be collected at the source. It is precisely because they know that that feature, more than the reduction of the yield on the bonds, is the feature that will prevent them from taking up their new Conversion Loan that that has been left out. They want it to be a success, and in order that it may be a success, they allow this practice to continue.
They allow the defrauding of the Revenue in order that they may get greater contributions to the Conversion Loan when it is established.
Personally, I am inclined to vote against it. If these people will not respond to a conversion involving one point less in their interest, we shall be entitled to take further steps against them later on. I am inclined to go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment. We ought to oppose the issue of these warrants for debt on the ground that we cannot trust the people who loan this country money. We cannot trust them. I believe that the representatives of the Treasury would like to follow me into the Lobby, but they dare not do so. If you did get a foreigner who, in spite of the fact that our adherence to the gold standard appears to be in doubt throughout the world, does show some desire to come and take up this new

Conversion Loan, and he proved that he was a foreigner, truly and honestly, resident abroad in another country and not merely a man who goes abroad to avoid domicile in this country, the Government could say: "You are a foreigner, and our laws do not apply to you in our country. Therefore, there will he repayment to you of the tax that has been deducted." Do not assume, in order to let the foreigner off, that the English investor is an honest person, who will pay his Income Tax. Let us put it the other way round, and assume that nobody is honest and prepared to pay his Income Tax. Let us deduct the tax at the source and, where necessary, give the foreigner a rebate.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 187.

Division No. 475.] 
AYES. 
10.17 p.m. 


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chapman, Sir S.
Flson, F. G. Clavering


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Christie, J. A.
Foot, Isaac


Albery, Irving James
Church, Major A. G.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Alexander, sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Ganzonl, Sir John


Aske, Sir Robert
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Astor, Ma], Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)
Col[...]ox, Major William Philip
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Atkinson, C.
Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Colman, N. C. D.
Gillett, George M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colville, Major D. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. ot Thanet)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Glassey, A. E.


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Beamish. Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gower, Sir Robert


Beaumont. M. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cowan, D. M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gray, Milner


Betterton, sir Henry B.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Birkett, W. Norman
Cunilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Blinded, James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boyce, Leslie
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bracken, B.
Davies, E- C. (Montgomery)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Du[...]wich)


BraithWa[...]te, Major A. N.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hammersley, S. S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hanbury, C.


Brown, Brig-.Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Buchan, John
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Harbord, A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Harris, Percy A.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hartington, Marquess of


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Butler, R. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Haslam, Henry C.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxt'd, Henley)


Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Elm[...]ey, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Castle Stewart, Earl of
England, Colonel A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)


Cautley, Sir Henry s.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Cayzer, Sir c. (Chester, City)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Ferguson, Sir John
Hurd, Percy A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Fielden, E. B.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Muirhead, A. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)


Jones, Lleweliyn-, F.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
O'Connor, T. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smithers, Waldron


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Knight, Holford
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Penny, Sir George
Stanley, Lord (Fyl[...]e)


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Peters, Or. Sidney John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Liewellin, Major J. J.
Purbrick, R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Pybus, Percy John
Thomson, Sir F.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Ramsbotham, H.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Long, Major Hon. Erie
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Train, J.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lymington, Viscount
Remer, John R.
Turton, Robert Hugh


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S,
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Robinson, sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Maclean, sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wayland, Sir William A.


Macquisten, F. A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wells, Sydney R.


Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ross, Ronald D.
White, H. G.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rothschild, J. de
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Marjorlbanks, Edward
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Markham, S. F.
Salmon, Major I.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Womersley, W. J.


Meller, R. J.
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Millar, J. O.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.



Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Savery, S S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Scott, James
Captain Sir Ctorge Bowyer and Sir


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Victor Warrender.


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Dukes, C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Alpass, S. H.
Duncan, Charles
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Ammon, Charles George
Dunnico, H.
Hoffman, P. C.


Arnott, John
Ede, James Chuter
Horrabin, J. F.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edmunds, J. E.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Ayles, Walter
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Isaacs, George


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jenkins, Sir William


Barnes, Alfred John
Egan. W. H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Barr, James
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Batey, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gill, T. H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gossling, A. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bowen, J. W.
Gould, F.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Bromley, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Brooke, W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawson, John James


Brothers, M.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Leach, W.


Buchanan. G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Burgess, F. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Leonard, W.


Cameron, A. G
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Cape, Thomas
Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Logan, David Gilbert


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Longbottom, A. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Longden, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Haycock, A. W.
Lunn, William


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hayday, Arthur
McElwee, A.


Compton, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
McEntee, V. L.


Cove, William G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
McKinlay, A.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
MacLaren, Andrew


Daggar, George
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Herr[...]otts, J.
McShane, John James


Devlin, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)




Manning, E. L.
Raynes, W. R.
Sullivan, J.


Mansfield, W.
Richards, R.
Sutton, J. E.


Marshall, Fred
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Mathers, George
Riley, Ben (Dewebury)
Thorne. W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Maxton, James
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thurtle, Ernest


Messer, Fred
Ritson, J.
Tillett, Ben


Middleton, G.
Romeril, H. G.
Tout, W. J.


Mills, J. E.
Rowson, Guy
Townend, A. E.


Montague, Frederick
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Vaughan, David


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sandham, E.
Walkden, A. G.


Morley, Ralph
Sawyer, G. F.
Walker, J.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wallace, H. W.


Mort, D. L.
Scurr, John
Watkins, F. C.


Muggerldge, H. T.
Sexton, Sir James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Murnin, Hugh
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Naylor, T. E.
Shield, George William
Wellock, Wilfred


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shillaker, J. F.
Welsh, James (Pals[...])


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Shinwell, E.
Westwood, Joseph


Oldfield, J. R.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Simmons, C. J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Palln, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Paling, Wilfrid
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Pole, Major D. G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wise E. F.


Potts, John S.
Sorensen, R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Price, M. P.
Stamford, Thomas W.



Quibell, D. J. K.
Stephen, Campbell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Kinley and Mr. Marley.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

ROAD FUND [ADVANCES].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 7IA.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to provide that advances to the Road Fund made under Section thirty-six of the Finance Act, 1931, shall he made nut of moneys provided by Parliament instead of out of the Consolidated Fund."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Pybus.]

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I would like very briefly to explain the purpose of the Resolution. Prior to the present year it was the practice of successive Governments to confine expenditure out of the Road Fund in any year to an amount not exceeding the available resources of the Fund in the preceding year. This policy was departed from when power was taken by the Finance Act to enable the Treasury to make advances to the Road Fund during the current financial year up to a total of £9,000,000 to be borrowed for that purpose. The circumstances that gave rise to the excess of expenditure over the revenue of the Fund were fully explained by the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor as Minister of Transport. I think it had something to do with a "raid" and a
"clutching hand." The expenditure in this year on the Road Fund, in excess of the available resources of that Fund, will be met, not by borrowing, but out of money to be voted by Parliament. This method of financing expenditure is in consonance with the general financial policy of the Government as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday last. Parliament will therefore be called on at a later date to provide the funds necessary to supplement the income of the Road Fund in order to finance the expenditure falling due up to March next. That briefly explains the purpose of the Resolution.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: May I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his succession to the interesting and exacting office which I held and to wish him such happiness in his task as is consistent with the existence of a vigilant Opposition. He has explained to the Committee the purpose of this Resolution and, subject to anything that may happen hereafter and any additional information that may be required, I do not propose to advise my hon. Friends to divide against it. As recently as a few months ago, it was decided by the late Government to seek powers to borrow up to £10,000,000 for the purposes of the Road Fund and I am bound to say that I have some sympathy with the new Minister because that announcement of borrowing for road purposes was received with loud Liberal cheers. It was one of the concessions
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Liberal party at that time, and it is a sad fact that a Member of the Liberal party as Minister should now be called upon to move a Motion which promptly terminates the one concession which the late Government made to the borrowing policy which the Liberal party made so prominent in a book, now probably out of print, entitled, "We can cure Unemployment." I shall not dilate further upon that subject, because it would be unkind to remind Liberal Members, in present circumstances, that such a book ever saw the light, and I only hope that they can forget it as promptly as I am endeavouring to do, for their sakes no less than our own.
I understand, therefore, that the power to borrow up to £10,000,000 is not to be acted upon and that the excess of Road Fund expenditure over Road Fund resources is to be met out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. In view of the reductions of expenditure in connection with the Road Fund decided upon by the present Government, I understand that the amount to be so provided will be in the region of £2,250,000. Again, I am sorry to mention the matter, but we were grumbled at, up hill and down dale, on the ground that we were not spending money quickly enough on roads and bridges and highways and byways and it now falls to the lot of a Member of the Liberal party to sound the note of retreat. Instead of grumbling at us that we were not spending enough, he is practically telling us that we took the advice of the Liberal party too literally and were spending too much. But I pass from that subject also, because I am anxious to be pleasant to the hon. Gentleman on the occasion of his first appearance as a Minister in Debate.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us anything as to the method whereby the Government will decrease the amount of road work to be done. I presume it is in order to ask that question, as the Road Fund is being reorganised. Can he tell us the classes of road and bridge work to be decreased and the method in which the local authorities are to be negotiated with, in order to bring expenditure within the new conditions and operate this Resolution? I do not know whether the Minister can tell
us about certain London schemes in which I, as a London Member, am interested. There is the scheme which is urgently needed for the Elephant and Castle, which has been grumbled about for many years, and I wonder whether he can tell us what are the prospects of that work being proceeded with. On traffic grounds, there is a—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out that if this Resolution is carried and put in the Finance Bill, a Supplementary Estimate will be required for the Ministry of Transport, and it would seem to me that that would be the more appropriate occasion for raising details, rather than on this occasion, which is merely for the authorisation of moneys being paid out of public funds instead of being borrowed.

Mr. EDE: On a point of Order. I understand that this Resolution reduces the amount from £10,000,000 to £2,500,000. If therefore we pass this Resolution tonight without asking these questions, any one of us may find that our pet schemes have been slaughtered in silence, and we should at least desire that they might have a few dying groans before they expire.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is better informed than I am. All that I know is that under the Finance Act of 1931 authority was given to the Treasury to borrow, on behalf of the Road Fund, up to £10,000,000. This Resolution merely says that the moneys required to make up the deficit shall be provided by moneys provided by Parliament and not by borrowing. I have no idea as to what is contemplated. The Minister has given no information to the Committee.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: May I, with great respect, put this point to you, Captain Bourne, that the Resolution before the Committee is a Resolution which directly arises out of the policy of the Government in connection with economy and to make provision for those changed circumstances, and, of course, the Resolution is explained in the Memorandum which was publishes on the economy policy of the Government. May I put it to you that before the Committee parts with this Resolution it should be competent for us on
this side to know what the Government propose to do on certain points if this Resolution is carried. That is a point of difficulty for myself and my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills), who would not wish to part with this Resolution without knowing what the Government's intentions are if the new financial arrangements are sanctioned by the House.

Colonel ASHLEY: On that point of Order. May I put it to you that the Minister read out a rather general and comprehensive statement dealing with these particular points and the Road Fund generally, and that therefore the Committee should be allowed, without going into detail, generally to get information as to what the position is?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have no desire to curtail the discussion, but I think the Committee will see my difficulty. As far as I am aware, this Resolution merely says that moneys which were previously raised by borrowing shall be raised out of moneys provided by Parliament. Obviously in that case the time to discuss the details would be when the moneys were voted. At the same time, I fully appreciate the position of hon. Members who have schemes in view, and I have no desire to stop discussion. I have no personal knowledge as to whether the total of £10,000,000 is to be raised under this Resolution or whether the economies that aye to be made will be made by borrowing, and I should be grateful for some guidance from the Minister on this point.

Mr. MORRISON: Before the Minister replies, may I say that I do not wish to involve the Committee in a long Debate on detail, but I want to be sure that these points can he raised? Will the Minister tell us whether it is not the case that this Resolution does arise directly out of the economy policy of the Government and is designed to meet the new financial situation?

Mr. PYBUS: I understood that the Resolution meant that works which had previously been carried out and charged to capital were now only going to be carried out out of revenue. That is, as far as I can see, what the Resolution meant, and I think that is what it does mean. I appreciate the tender manner in
which the right hon. Gentleman opposite dealt with me. I should like to give some information as to the methods by which we propose to effect these economies, but I was given to understand that if I did that, I should be out of order, in view of the fact that there will be ample opportunity for discussing each scheme in detail. I understand that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) has a scheme very dear to his heart, and that he would like to know how we propose to deal with it. I understand that at a later date I shall have every opportunity, which I shall not shirk, of showing how we propose to deal with it.

Mr. MORRISON: I venture to submit that it is a matter of the gravest uncertainty as to which of these works would be met out of revenue and which out of borrowing. Nobody can say; you cannot possibly isolate the two, and I submit that before the Committee passes from this Resolution, I and my hon. Friends should be free to raise, not in lengthy detail, but on broad grounds, questions as to what is to happen to certain schemes in which we are interested in the new financial conditions to which this Resolution is directly related.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I am equally in a difficulty as to which of the schemes are to be financed out of current revenue and which out of borrowing. In the circumstances, very brief references to the scheme may be permitted, but I will remind hon. Members that they will have a further opportunity of raising these points on another occasion when wider arguments will be permitted.

Mr. MORRISON: That is a fair compromise in the difficulty in which you, Captain Bourne, and the Committee are placed, although it is not unusual for the House of Commons, in my experience under the last Government, to discuss one subject several times over, and sometimes at very great length, but I am not an admirer of that procedure, and I will not aggravate the situation. I was anxious to know what is likely to happen to the Elephant and Castle scheme which has been desired for many years, and also the Vauxhall Cross scheme which, on traffic grounds, is even more urgent and important. I should be glad also
if the Minister could tell us what is to happen to the Chelsea Bridge scheme, and particularly to the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel scheme. This is a scheme of great difficulty which we spent some time in getting through, for which an Act of Parliament was passed, and in which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) has great interest. These are the only particular schemes to which I would like to refer. Some of my hon. Friends would no doubt like to know about the Humber Bridge upon which a great deal of money has been spent in the promotion of a Bill.
I do not know whether the Minister could indicate how many workpeople are likely to be put out of employment by the reduction in the road programme of the Government. There is considerable anxiety on that subject on this side of the House, and before we part with the Resolution that ought to be referred to. There is one other subject to which I venture to make reference, because I am in real doubt as to the consequences of this Resolution. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) contributed a letter to "The Times" when the report of the Economy Committee was published on the question of the abolition of the Road Fund as a more or less—I say "more or less" advisedly—independent entity.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that this is a proper occasion to go into the existence of the Road Fund. I have allowed the Debate to go rather wider than I originally intended, because I realise that the Committee and I are in a difficulty as to what is involved by borrowing and revenue, and the Debate should be restricted to what schemes will be covered by borrowing and what by revenue. The discussion on merits should be postponed to a later date.

Colonel ASHLEY: May we have your Ruling as to whether this Resolution does in fact deal with the Road Fund as an entity? In reading the Resolution I am in doubt whether it affects the independence of the Road Fund in any sense, or deals only with moneys which are to be advanced to the Road Fund from the National Exchequer.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Under Section 36 of the Finance Act of this year, power was given to the Treasury to borrow £10,000,000 to meet the deficit of the Road Fund. This Resolution seems to me to deal solely with the money to replace that borrowing, and does not deal with the Road Fund as an entity. As I understand it, the ordinary income of the Road Fund is not affected by this Resolution, and, therefore, this is not the appropriate occasion to discuss whether or not the Road Fund should continue as a separate entity.

Mr. McSHANE: Further to that point of Order. I have here the White Paper, which states on page 12:
It was estimated that the Road Fund would have required a loan from the Exchequer next year of £10,000,000 to enable it to meet its obligations, and under existing practice the Exchequer would have itself borrowed this £10,000,000 in order to lend it to the Road Fund. The sum required from the Exchequer will now be reduced to about £2,250,000, and this sum will not be borrowed by the Exchequer but will be provided out of a Vote of Parliament.
The sum to meet the obligations is to be reduced from £10,000,000 to £2,250,000, and I submit with respect that if this Resolution is allowed to go through now unchallenged when the Vote comes on later we shall find ourselves gagged and bound and not able to raise these most material points. I therefore suggest that it would be in the best interests of the Minister himself and of this Committee if the Minister were to withdraw this Resolution to-night. It would be a most serious matter if we passed this Resolution as it stands now, because we should have no power to deal with these points later.

Major COLFOX: I would submit that although the sum to be borrowed is to be reduced this Resolution does not reduce it. This Resolution says merely that the money shall be provided in a different way.

Mr. MILLS: rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) rise to a point of Order?

Mr. MILLS: No, Sir. I rose to move to report Progress.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept a Motion now to report Progress. The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) raised a point of Order, and one has also been raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Colonel Ashley) and the hon. and gallant Member for South Dorset (Major Colfox). I could not possibly accept a Motion to report Progress before those points of of Order have been dealt with. It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Member for South Dorset pointed out, that the Resolution itself neither mentions a reduction or increase, or any other sum of money, but, at the same time, in view of the issue of the White Paper by His Majesty's Government, I think it would be pedantic if we were to stick too closely to the actual letter of the Resolution. The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch is this, I think, that this Resolution merely authorises the method by which this deficit in the Road Fund should be made up. It does not deal with the Road Fund itself, and there is nothing either in this White Paper or in the Resolution itself to lead me to suppose that the ordinary income of the Road Fund will not accrue as laid down by statute. Therefore, I have ruled that the question as to whether the Road Fund should or should not continue as a separate entity does not arise on this Resolution, which deals solely with whether money is to be borrowed or voted by Parliament in order to make up any deficit which may arise.

Mr. PERRY: On a point of Order. You have ruled during the Debate that particular schemes cannot be referred to in detail but may be discussed at a later stage when the Supplementary Estimates are submitted. When a Supplementary Estimate is submitted and, for illustration, the Dartford Tunnel is not included in that Estimate, will there be any opportunity in the discussion on the Estimate to discuss that?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would appear to me that it would be an admirable reason for any Member interested in that scheme to move a reduction in the Estimate.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am sorry if I went astray. I was anxious to know the point on which you reassured us, whether the passage of this Resolu-
tion was, in effect, a point of policy of the abolition of the Road Fund as a separate entity and of road expenditure being provided by the Treasury. You have assured Os that that does not arise, and therefore we can raise this point on the Schedule to the Economy Bill. Therefore the question before the House is whether it will give additional power to the Treasury to submit votes to Parliament to cover additional expenditure beyond the votes from the Road Fund. That being an enabling power, I do not think we can very well divide against the Motion. It does not in any way prejudice the rights of the Opposition to discuss the matter fully and to divide on the Schedule of the Economy Bill where this matter arises. If the Opposition now divides on a Resolution enabling Parliament to spend money on roads beyond the Road Fund, we should be voting in a foolish direction. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friends vote in that way, it will be their funeral and not mine. I hope the Minister will be able to give us the information for which I ask, because some of us are very anxious as to the future of some of these important schemes.

Colonel ASHLEY: The Conservative party, to which I belong, is the only party that can approach this question with a clear conscience, because the Labour party this spring took power to borrow in the next 12 months no less than £10,000,000 for extra road works, and they were aided by the Liberal party. The late Minister of Transport is entirely unrepentent and now says to his followers, "Vote for this, because we will spend more money on roads than we otherwise would." Therefore the Conservative party is the only party which stands now, as in the past, for economy. It has not been raised in this Debate what really happens under this Resolution, and that is of some importance. I want the Minister when he replies to make clear what is the exact difference between moneys provided by Parliament by a Vote and moneys provided out of the Consolidated Fund. One can understand the meaning of moneys provided by a Supplementary Estimate, but what is meant by this proposal?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I cannot accept responsibility for the policy of the Government.

Colonel ASHLEY: As I understand it this Resolution means more control by the House of Commons, and therefore it is a Resolution which ought to commend itself to hon. Members in all parts of the House. What has been going on up to now between the Treasury and the Ministry of Transport is rather a hole-and-corner operation, which is not the least improper, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be relied upon to look after the finances of the country. In the past, pledges of financial support to the Road Fund have been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day without the knowledge of the House of Commons and without any vote of the House of Commons having been given to sanction it. If this Resolution means that in future no financial support will be given to the Road Fund by the Exchequer without a vote by the House of Commons, then I am in favour of it, and I think every hon. Member on this side of the House will agree with me in that contention.
11.0 p.m.
You have stated, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that hon. Members, without going into much detail, may ask certain specific questions on general policy which may be answered in this Debate. The first point I wish to raise is in regard to the White Paper issued a week or two ago. From that document we gather that the advance to which this Resolution refers will be cut down in 1932–33 from roughly £10,000,000 to £2,500,000, and that the Road Fund will have to carry all its expenditure except £2,500,000. I want to know what amount of money will be given to support the Road Fund in the present financial year? Will the sum be £1,000,000 or £2,000,000, or how many millions will the taxpayers have to find to supplement road work and bridge building? I think it is important that we should have a clear understanding on what principle the Minister of Transport is proceeding in regard to the works which the late Minister of Transport had put on order. What is happening to those proposals? How many are to be dropped, and how many are to be proceeded with? Has the
Minister of Transport made any arrangements in regard to these matters with the local authority or has he in any way broken faith with them? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes:"] Has he made arrangements with the local authorities, who in most cases will be quite amenable to argument and will agree to a modification of the programme? If so, on what basis has he made this agreement with them. It is obvious that, if you are only going to spend next year £2,750,000 instead of £10,000,000, and in this financial year, perhaps, only £1,500,000 instead of whatever proportion remains between now and the end of the financial year, it is most important that the money should be spent so as to give the utmost measure of employment. Therefore, as regards the report which has been recently made to the Minister of Transport, it seems to me that that report might usefully be shelved until some future time, because, if my recollection is correct, it cannot put any men to work for some three or four years, as the first two or three years, at any rate, will be occupied in buying up property and clearing sites. It will be much better, therefore, to devote this money to the Dartford Tunnel, where a large number of men can be employed, where a great deal of steelwork would be used. Rather than use it for the making of useless by-passes, let it be used for the building of bridges, where steel would be used and a large amount of indirect labour would be employed. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has thought of all these things. [Interruption.] Why not? He is an able business man. All that I want to know is on what lines he is negotiating with the local authorities. I beg him to keep faith with them, because it will be a bad precedent to compel them to break their contracts, though they may be induced by argument to see the Government's point of view in a national crisis. If the hon. Gentleman can inform us on these points, I think it will he helpful to Members of the Committee.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I rise to oppose the results which will follow from the Motion before the Committee. As chairman of a county rates committee, I have had considerable experience with the
previous Minister of Transport and with his predecessor, both of whom I came to honour and admire; but the black hand of the Treasury had cast its shadow upon my right hon. Friend even before he left that office. In our county we were suffering under the shadow which it was casting. Recently an alderman of the county with which I am connected stated in public that the last Minister of Transport was as obstinate as a mule. I would not say that; I have no desire to insult that noble animal. [Interruption.] I hasten to add that, since these last weeks have appeared and gone, I have freely forgiven him for our bad opinions.
The economy which is suggested in this matter should at any rate be discriminating, and I claim that this economy is not discriminating. Roads are used nowadays by all the subjects of the Realm—not only by motor cars, but by the working man's coach, the omnibus, and even by the people who have to travel on foot: and this great feature of our modern social life is indispensable. I understand that in recent years, thanks to the efforts of the predecessors of those on the Front Bench opposite, this country has been spending approximately £60,000,000 on this subject, and I claim that, whatever opinions we may have on public services such as education, or police, or unemployment benefit, or health, or upon such luxuries as beer and tobacco and cinemas, here at any rate, where the Government are seeking to economise and cut, the nation has value for every sixpence that it spends.
I admit at once that there are degrees even in urgency, and that some schemes should be put in hand in prosperity and some in adversity. I remember the leader of the Liberal party, with his natural eloquence, which I as a fellow-countryman always admire, whether I agree with it or not, telling the Government and the ex-Minister of Transport over and over again that those were times of great difficulty but they were also times of great opportunity. If we may bring that up to date, obviously the times in which we are now living are times of greater difficulty, and obviously they are times of greater opportunity. I have on the shelf where I keep my notes—I mean my reading matter in preparation for the splendid speeches that I have not had an opportunity to deliver—and were it
not for my high regard for individual Members of the Liberal party, I would have brought in during the time of waiting that great book which has been referred to by my right hon. Friend, "We can cure Unemployment." The Measure now before the House will make more difficult of solving some of our present problems. In various parts of the country necessary schemes in times of adversity will provide means of solving some of our problems. It is urgent in this distressful time that this Government should seek not to cut down those which give the maximum of employment and which stimulate industry, but should rather improve upon the efforts of the last Government.
I will try to steer clear of yor Ruling, Captain Bourne, and avoid giving utterance to any of my pet schemes, but may I put forward, as an illustration and not as a pet scheme, what could be done if, for instance, instead of this cut. the money was spent, say, on a great arterial road from outside London to South Wales, and the advantage of it would be to industry and commerce if, instead of people going from Bristol to South Wales and vice versa having to travel 90 miles, a bridge across the Severn might be made, shortening that distance to 26 miles.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Resolution clearly does not define how the money to be provided by Parliament is to be expended by the Minister, and, therefore, the desirability of the hon. Member's schemes should be submitted to him privately.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I was afraid I was steering rather wide. I thank you, Captain Bourne, for your forbearance. We have in South Wales 200,000 surplus population, and, as one of my hon. Friends, the Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan), said to me just now, in the administrative county of Glamorganshire alone there are 73,000 unemployed. The Government are cutting down those very schemes which at present are giving some employment. I appeal to the Front Bench for another reason. I boast of being a native of South Wales and of understanding the psychology of South Wales. In our teeming valleys they have been quiet and law-abiding partly because they felt that
their friends were sitting on the Front Bench opposite. They did not always think that they were doing sufficient for their interests, but there it was, a great pacifying influence. Now that is removed. They think that their enemies sit there.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have a little difficulty in seeing how the hon. Member reconciles the views of South Wales as to the merits or demerits of the late Government with the matter which is now before the Committee.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I was only trying to make this tremendous point. There is general depression, and with the cutting out of even a portion of the employment that now prevails, those people are getting very near the verge of revolt. I ask the Government to reinstate this £7,750,000 in order that some of it at least may flow through our depressed areas. I have no desire to keep the Committee on this my pet subject, but I wish to say that with regard to the grandiose schemes and the luxury work referred to in the Economy Report I am quite willing to agree, as a sensible person that some of the London schemes came under that category. When they included the necessary works which are now being cut out, I can only say the Committee displayed their colossal ignorance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said over and over again concerning this very subject that wise expenditure is the best economy. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear that in mind particularly in these distressful times which have come upon this country largely as a result of the propaganda of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite. They are sitting there trying to remedy the very things which they have created. I ask them in these distressful times to remember Lincoln's words:
We are face to face with a new situation.
And we are face to face with it now. Let us think anew, act anew, and so save the State and particularly the unemployed. who are going to be hardest hit by this outrageous proposition.

Mr. MILLS: I regret very much that the new Minister of Transport has been placed in the position in which he finds himself. It is in the highest degree disadvantageous to a new Minister, taking
on a new job, that he should be saddled with the responsibility of a Motion like this, without having been given the necessary information. [Interruption.] I say that without any offence. At various times in this House I have been associated with certain Members of Parliament, including the Minister of Transport. To-day he is here as Minister of Transport making this proposition, and yesterday he was supporting the proposal that this great road communication on the East Coast right down to the South, is a necessary measure of constructive development in Essex and Kent. If we could secure his private opinion it would be wholeheartedly in favour of continuing the scheme to which I refer. I want to ask exactly what we may expect in regard to schemes which have received the sanction of Parliament and have committed the county authorities to a great deal of expenditure. Months have been spent in the promotion of private legislation. The ratepayers of Kent and Essex and in a lesser degree London and Hertfordshire have been mulcted in sums of money for the promotion of the Bill and to get it through this House and the House of Lords. They have secured general consent to its construction and now in the very hour when the actual construction is about to be started, the Minister of Transport was compelled to say, in the answer which he gave to me last week when I asked him what was the present position, that he was unable to tell me.
In those circumstances I utter the strongest possible protest. It is obvious that the committee which in their summary of recommendations made this paticular item,
Road Fund. Postponement and slowing down of all schemes and lowering of the present very high standard of maintenance, £7,865,000,
did it as one of the items of national economy. Their justification is the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He balanced his Budget by sneaking £7,000,000 from that fund in 1926, and they strengthened their argument by saying that in the following year because Parliament took very little notice of his depredations he took a further £12,000,000 from it. Because he did that in his capacity as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the May Committee cynically
suggest that the Road Fund should be wiped out as a fund which has been in existence—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that whether the Road Fund should or should not continue, does not arise on this Resolution.

Mr. MILLS: I will not question your Ruling, except to say that if we are cut short in our comment on the withdrawal or the cutting down of these schemes, it will not prejudice us from a reasoned and impartial demand for fuller explanation of the Supplementary Estimate. The Minister of Transport has been placed in a very awkward position. I sympathise with him. Let me repeat that the moneys paid by the county council for the land which has been acquired, the extra cost of transport to the employers, shipping agencies and conveyers, from one end of the County of Essex to the County of Kent, is one reason why this scheme should be proceeded with without delay.

Mr. EDE: The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Vaughan) likened the right lion. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Herbert Morrison) to a mule. I should have thought that the present Government best deserved that description, for they certainly have no pride of ancestry or any hope of posterity. The Minister of Transport and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education have had the clearest possible signs during the present Debate that as soon as their services are no longer required by the Conservative party they will be painlessly put out of the way by the people who now sit behind them and deride them. I sympathise with the Minister of Transport in the treatment he received from the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley). I have never seen it occur before, that when a Minister of the Crown rises to make an explanation lie is refused by the hon. Member who is speaking.

Colonel ASHLEY: All I said was that when the Minister of Transport came to reply he would have his opportunity. There was no necessity for me to give way.

Mr. EDE: It was perfectly obvious how deep was the disappointment that
some people were on the back benches instead of being on the Front Bench.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This has no relation whatever to the Resolution before the Committee. I must ask the hon. Member to keep strictly to the point; whether borrowing is to take place or not, whether the money is to be defrayed by money voted by this House, and if there is to be any reduction what effect it will have on any particular scheme. What may happen to the Minister does not arise.

Mr. EDE: The point I want to make is this, that this is a proposal to deal with capital works out of revenue rather than by way of loan. You have great works of national importance and you propose to finance them out of the revenue for the year. That is contrary to the whole practice of local government in this country, and the Minister is going to get into tremendous difficulties unless he is very careful. I represent a local authority which has very important relationship with the Ministry and I want to ask questions about three types of schemes and particularly how the Resolution will affect them.
I want to take a case in my own constituency where there is a road-widening scheme. It involves taking the forecourts of a large number of houses, it takes a piece off the Congregational Church—a matter that ought to be of some concern to the Liberal party. Part of the negotiations has been completed, but the whole of the bargains have not been struck. With these reduced sums of money will those schemes go forward or will the borough be left with the parts that it has acquired, giving the street a ragged front, and the part that it has not acquired still jutting out into the road, making the place look very untidy and disfigured?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now transgressing my earlier Ruling, that details should not be discussed on this occasion. I must ask him to devote himself to complete schemes and not to go into details.

Mr. EDE: I was illustrating the kind of difficulty that will arise by the sudden shutting down of schemes. There is another type of scheme. There was a scheme sanctioned by the former Minister
of Transport for a by-pass road that had involved very considerable negotiations with the National Trust. The whole of the lay-out of a great piece of property will be spoiled unless the local authority can proceed with the scheme. It is the Egham by-pass road, and the great piece of property is Runnymede, on which Magna Charta was signed. I have no doubt that the Government regard that particular piece of British liberty as a thing that ought not to be commemorated, and desire to see the whole place spoiled.
There is a third type of scheme where the landowner has given the land on which a new by-pass road is to be constructed on condition that the work is to be proceeded with during the next few months. Is that kind of scheme going to be knocked out? I want to emphasise the statement that this proposal will have a deplorable effect on employment in the coming winter—and even in the Bodmin Division of Corn-wall. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) may be very tired, but I can assure him from a visit I paid to his constituency recently—

Sir COOPER RAWSON: is this long speech really necessary? Surely all these points are covered by the Memorandum, which states definitely that any scheme that has been commenced and approved shall be financed by the Road Fund?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is fortunately not part of my duty to judge the futility or otherwise of hon. Members' speeches.

Mr. EDE: I am sure that the hon. Member has not dorm himself the credit of reading the White Paper with intelligence. What, arrangements does the Minister propose to make when this money is withdrawn, for dealing midi the men who have been proceeding from distressed areas to the areas where schemes have been carried out on a consecutive basis for a long period of years? [Interruption.] I will not point to the Noble Lord; he is quite conspicuous enough without it. Is the Government to make any arrangements to deal with the men who have been trying to build up new homes in the South of England and other districts
where these schemes are being carried out—men who have transferred their families from distressed areas?

Mr. ALPASS: As representing a constituency in which some very important road schemes have been embarked upon, I ask the Minister to give us fuller and more precise information as to the position in which local authorities like the Bristol City Council will be placed, when the proposals outlined in the White Paper are enforced. The wording of the White Paper is extremely vague. It says:
It is proposed to provide that the Minister shall not withdraw the promise of Road Fund assistance to any work on which the local authority is already committed to a 'substantial liability.'
The Bristol City Council and also large numbers of my constituents, who were promised work on these schemes and some of whom have already been started to work on them are concerned to know who is going to define "substantial liability." The White Paper continues by stating that this expression
will be defined quantitatively under terms of a prescribed percentage of the total estimated cost of the particular work.
In my constituency, as in the constituencies of other hon. Members, the local authority has gone to considerable expense in connection with new roads and streets. One scheme is for a new road right through Bristol to relieve the congestion of traffic in the centre of that city. A considerable sum has been spent in making a survey for the proposed new road, negotiations have been opened with property owners and some other schemes have actually been commenced. The issue of this White Paper, involving large reductions in expenditure on road schemes of this character, has created considerable perturbation in the minds not only of the members of the city council but of the people who were expecting to get employment as a result of these schemes. Large numbers of unemployed in Bristol have found their only opportunity of doing useful work, in the operation of these schemes and I contemplate with anxiety what is going to happen to these people during next winter. In many cases these schemes have afforded them the only chance of work they have had for three or four years. I ask the Minister to inform us whether we are to be allowed to complete
these schemes, and whether the assistance promised by the late Minister from the Road Fund will be forthcoming and if not, to what extent, we shall be allowed to proceed with the schemes. These are extremely important points. We do not know where we stand at the moment, and it is due to this Committee and to the representatives of constituencies where road schemes are of vital importance, both as regards transport and employment, that we should have the information at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. HARB0RD: I cannot lightly, either by a silent vote or by a vote at all, consent to contribute to a reversal of the past policy by the cutting down of Estimates as far as the Road Fund is concerned, especially in view of the fact that two additional increases of the Petrol Tax have been imposed quite recently on those whose motor transport uses our roads. I do not grudge any sacrifices for myself, though I am but in a small way of business, and though in seven different ways under this Budget my taxes are increased, but I do say that this reversal of road policy is most distasteful to me. It is one that will be resented by the workingmen of this country. I have always believed in the provision of public work, on national schemes, rather than in Poor Law relief, or the dole. I know that, through no fault of the people, there is great distress and poverty among them. What then is the alternative to providing public work for them to do in their extreme necessity? It means that these men are to be forced to go to the guardians and thus be made paupers. This effects no saving. Should they not be put to useful work, which would be of value for the public benefit?

Mr. McSHANE: On an important Resolution like this there ought to be a representative of the Treasury present. We heard that complaint now and again, though not very often, when the Labour Government were in office, and there is no doubt that there ought to be a Treasury representative present now. This Resolution deals with the method that is to be adopted in future as to financing the road schemes, and the Resolution cannot be divorced at all from the effect of the Government's other schemes in relation to their economy pro-
posals. I want to deal with the effect of this Resolution, if it be passed—which I hope it will not, especially after the excellent speeches which we have heard against it—upon the case of those men who are at present in receipt of transitional benefit. If these road schemes are stopped or very largely held up, what will be the result? The numbers of men who at present are enabled to get a certain number of stamps on their unemployment insurance cards and so keep themselves in benefit will be considerably reduced, and there will be a largely increased number of unemployed men who will come out of transitional benefit altogether and on to the public assistance committees' books. We are to approach a winter without the work that has been provided for these men, many of them men who are not accustomed to work on the roads, and it is a shameful thing that any new method such as this should be adopted in order to prevent them doing some useful work which would add to the real economy of the country. I hope that the Committee will not allow this Resolution to go through. The whole of the discussion to-night has been most unsatisfactory from the Government point of view. Frankly, we do not know what the effect of the Resolution is going to be. We have had no real statement from the Minister, and I sympathise with him in the difficult position in which he has been placed. Apparently, someone has pushed him into that position to-night and has badly misinformed him, with the result that he has not come prepared to answer the questions which have been put to him.

Mr. PYBUS: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sympathy, but, before he says that I am not properly informed, it would be better if he gave me a chance to answer the questions.

Mr. McSHANE: I do not want to appear to be rude, but I said the hon. Gentleman was misinformed.

Mr. PYBUS: I was asked on both sides of the Committee to give a general explanation of how we proposed to deal with the operation of this cut of £8,000,000. It has nothing whatever to do with the Resolution, but, as nearly the whole Debate has been diverted to the question of how we propose to effect the necessary economies, I hope the Com-
mittee will forgive me if I deal with this matter. Of course, it is a difficult task to be faced with the necessity of reducing a particular class of expenditure from £28,000,000 to £20,000,000 when as an engineer my own desire would be to indulge in great works of improvement. Instead of that, my first job on entering the Ministry is to find out exactly how I am going to reduce the amount of money spent by £8,000,000 in the next financial year, and inflict as little hardship and do as little damage as I can in carrying out that policy. Obviously, in making these savings, we must, whether it be cutting down a work, or refusing to finish a work, or refusing to start a work, make up our minds that at the end we have got the best bargain for the State, for the local authorities, and for the travelling public.

Mr. McSHANE: What about the unemployed?

Mr. PYBUS: My predecessor won a great reputation for consulting local authorities and others, and for bringing them along with him; and, in order to get the best bargain, our first work was to get into touch with the local authorities. Already we have met the London County Council, the County Councils Association, and the Association of Municipal Corporations. We have met them, and I am happy to say that although some hon. Members took the view that they would receive our proposals with hostility my general impression is that, having appreciated the gravity of the situation, having appreciated the need for the decision—though hating it as much as anybody else —they have settled down to accept it. We are dividing the works into three classes (1) those where work has not actually been started, although grants may have been given, (2) works on which a very little money has been expended, and (3) works which have advanced so far that it is obvious they must be finished. We have asked the county councils and the other local authorities to furnish us with schedules giving full particulars of the works which they have in hand and selecting the category into which they think they should fall, and we hope to meet them again in conference in about 10 days' time and decide how far the money at our disposal will go.
Only then will it be possible for us to say whether any particular work can be proceeded with. I am not endeavouring to withhold any facts which can be given, but that is the position. One of my colleagues has forgotten that I am no longer his good friend on the Unemployment Grants Committee. All the unemployed who are not working on relief works in the coming winter will not be in that position on account of the Ministry of Transport. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to give us time to do this work properly. We must do the job carefully; otherwise a work that hon. Members wish should proceed may be allowed to fall by the wayside through not having been properly considered. That is all the information on general policy which I can give to the House. Further opportunities of considering this matter will arise in a few days, and by then we may have more information.

Mr. MATHERS: Do the consultations include consultations with those who will be affected by the decision about the road bridge across the Forth at Queens-ferry? No mention was made of Scottish authorities.

Mr. PYBUS: There are literally hundreds and hundreds of schemes and it is impossible to give information on any one of them.

Mr. MATHERS: Are Scottish authorities among those being consulted?

Mr. PYBUS: That is generally the principle on which we are working in our investigations. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) and one or two others are very concerned with works of great magnitude, such as the Dartford Tunnel, the Humber Bridge and the Elephant and Castle scheme. We are giving all those works of magnitude, particularly those which will create a large amount of employment, very careful consideration, but, until we have received from all the local authorities full details as to the amount of work that can be stopped, it is impossible to deal with them.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: In view of the course which the Debate has taken and the indication of policy which the hon. Gentleman has given with the deep repercussions that it indicates and since it has become clear that the pass-
ing of this Resolution does indicate somewhat fundamental changes, it will be necessary to divide on it.

Mr. ISAACS: I wish the following points to be kept in mind in connection with the Elephant and Castle scheme, which affects my constituency. This scheme will wipe away a tremendous number of shops in this busy shopping centre, and those people are very anxious to know whether they ought to renew their leases or not, as some of the leases will shortly be expiring. Secondly, in the background are first-class dwellings for working people. They do not know if they should go out or not. If they go out and the scheme is not proceeded with, it will be a present to the landlord of first-class decontrolled property. A decision on these points should therefore be made as early as possible.

Mr. LAWTHER: The Minister has stated that he is meeting the County Councils Association and other bodies. I wish to raise a point in connection with the council of the county which unfortunately sent the Prime Minister to this House. The Durham County Council put forward plans and only a few months ago every Member for Durham, including the Prime Minister, welcomed the representatives of the Durham County Council who put forward their schemes fur the coming winter. We were complimented by the Ministry and told to go on with our plans and schemes, but, before we get to the coming winter, we are now told by a representative of the same Prime Minister that men are to be thrown out of work before the winter. In this Memorandum it is stated that certain new schemes must be postponed and schemes in progress slowed down or curtailed. We are entitled to ask what are the schemes which are likely to be curtailed.
During the last few months anyone could see, on that portion of the Great North Road controlled by the Durham County Council, schemes in operation which even the Prime. Minister himself urged the Durham County Council to ask the Ministry to accept. We are now told that, as far as those schemes are concerned, they are to be turned down. Not
only is the money not going to be forthcoming, but there is a human tragedy attached to the decision too. No Minister could ever make more inhuman suggestions than those made by the Minister of Transport to-night. For us in Durham to be told that the schemes accepted by the Ministry are to be cut down to the extent of a third or a fourth, as put forward in this Memorandum, is the most brutal, hunnish, and inhuman suggestion ever put forward. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to give any further information or not, but, so far as those who represent the County of Durham on this side of the House are concerned, we are of the opinion that the Prime Minister has shown by his mishandling of the situation that he knows no more about the needs of his own county than the Minister of Transport.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I heard with astonishment what the Minister of Transport stated with regard to the County Councils' Association and the change which is now proposed relating to the Road Fund. I have been a member of the County Councils' Association since 1924, and I have been summoned to attend a special meeting of that association to-morrow.

Mr. PYBUS: I can assure the hon. Member that I have seen the representatives of the County Councils' Association.

12 m.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: A meeting of that association has been called to consider what steps shall be taken for the appointment of a committee to investigate the economy proposals of the Government with regard to local administration, and to consider an invitation from the Minister of Transport to appoint a representative on the committee to investigate the question of traffic signals. I think that is a very good suggestion. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Sir E. Bennett) is interested in one of the large road schemes in my constituency, in regard to which we received a telegram from the Government asking what we were doing to find employment for the men in our district. I believe it was proposed to spend as much as £400,000 on a road scheme in that district. We have already spent about £200,000. We have now, in round figures, 1,000 men at work in Glamorgan, out of the 70,000
whom, unfortunately, we have had idle in the administrative county. As I have already told the House, through the efforts of the late Government and the last Minister of Transport we found employment during the last 12 months for 12,212 men for eight weeks. We had in employment in July of this year nearly 3,000 men, and we are afraid that these men will now be thrown out of work if we have no guarantee. Imagine our position. We joined with the Government and spent last year, in connection with our road administration alone, £815,000, and, as I said the other evening, we are grateful to the late Government and to the House for having assisted us so materially in that direction. At the present moment we have commitments in Glamorgan amounting to £482,000, in addition to what we spent last year, and we are naturally apprehensive as to what is going to happen to our men in the forthcoming winter. Collieries, unfortunately, are going out of commission, and irregular work is becoming rampant. Cardiff also has about 7,000 men unemnloyed; I do not know what is the attitude of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Cardiff on this matter. [Interruption.] What are we in Glamorgan to do for money in the future, in face of the depression there? We could take a third or a quarter of the money projected in this Resolution, and usefully employ every penny of it in finding work for men, instead of paying them money for doing nothing.

Mr. MATHERS: I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Transport, arising out of the categories that he has laid down for future schemes. With regard to the Forth road bridge scheme, although this would come within the first category of schemes on which no work has already been done, I would ask the Minister to bear carefully in mind the fact that a very large number of men who are now unemployed in a badly hit area in Scotland could be employed on that scheme if it were put in operation. The scheme which is at present under examination is one for a bridge costing less than that originally projected, to cross the Forth somewhere near the same place. I appeal to the Minister not to regard the mere fact that no work has been commenced on this scheme as a justifica-
tion for turning it down absolutely, and to bear in mind the enormous number of men that could be employed on a scheme of this kind.

Mr. SIMMONS: The job of the Minister of Transport is easy, while that of his predecessor was hard. Many of us who were members of local authorities know that it was mainly due to the pressure of Labour members of them that so many claims were sanctioned by local authorities, while the Labour Government was in office. Birmingham sanctioned close upon £2,000,000 of unemployment relief work, including a great proportion for the Ministry of Transport. Many of these schemes, I take it from the Minister's statement, will have to go by the board. One interested me very intimately—a by-pass road in my division. I put this from a purely humanitarian point of view. There is a narrow road with a Church of England school coming right on to the roadway, and four times a day children of the working class are in danger of being knocked down and killed owing to traffic congestion. This curtailment of road work schemes will have a very adverse effect on the question of unemployment. Weekend after week-end in my own home I have unfolded to me the stark tragedy of men who say to me, "Cannot you get us a green card to go on a road job?" Men who are not used to heavy work come to me with blisters on their hands, men whom you are robbing of the dole and who you say do not want work, clerks and shop assistants out of work taking to pick and shovel work to show their manliness and independence and to show that they would rather work than have the dole. Why not give them a chance of continuing to show their independence and manliness? Why in this so-called national crisis are you denying to our class the right to their manhood and their independence?
This proposal that the Minister is trying to foist upon the House is going to mean that men who cannot otherwise quality for standard benefit under the Unemployment Insurance scheme will be thrown on to the Poor Law. It is the greatest insult to working men to force them into contact with the Poor Law, and that is the object of this Resolution, to deny them the chance of qualifying for
the unemployment benefit to which they would be entitled if they had a few weeks' employment on road work. May I not appeal to hon. Members opposite to realise that they are doing this job in the wrong way. By creating more unemployed, by throwing the unemployed upon the local authorities, they are aggravating the national crisis. Perhaps this gesture that they are making to cut down local expenditure on road works is to compensate them for the extra cost of the Poor Law as the result of the general policy of the Government. Instead of cutting down expenditure on this work of public utility and national importance, it ought to be increased. We throw back in your teeth the lie that they will not work. Those who say the unemployed do not want to work are liars. The unemployed want work. Give them a chance to work. If they are not given a chance to work, they will be driven on to the Poor Law to be pauperised. Just as the Navy have kicked, and just as it. is rumoured that the Army have kicked, so the unemployed are not going always to stand docile and tamely submit to the inhuman, stinking, rotten treatment that you are meting out to them.

Mr. McENTEE: I wish to add my plea to that which has been made to the Minister of Transport, but I would rather have made it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he were present. I have heard the plea, and the reply made by the Minister of Transport in reference to some of the £7,000,000, but the damage which is to be done to the unemployed is far in excess of that sum. It is not only the amount of the grant from the Road Fund or from national funds, but it is also the amount which will be paid in the ordinary and normal way by the municipalities themselves. I have sat in this House many times before this new composite Government was formed and heard the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, many of whom appear to see nothing in the sufferings of unemployed men and women but a reason for hilarity. I am somewhat surprised at the different treatment which has been meted out after a revolt has occurred in the Navy.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting a very long way from the Resolution.

Mr. McENTEE: I was only going to say that this is a matter which affects deeply the lives of my constituents and the constituents of many of the hon. Members opposite, and that. I cannot help feeling that, if their unemployed constituents had been present when the last speaker was on his feet, many hon. Members would have rued the action they are taking in the Committee to-night. I appeal to the Minister of Transport to reconsider the question of taking away from men and women the opportunity of earning a living. It is easy for hon. Gentlemen like the right hon. Gentleman opposite to live. His pocket is well lined, and no doubt his stomach is, too. We on this side are just as sensible to insults and sneers as hon. Members opposite.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: If the hon. Member is referring to me, I should like to say that I was not in any way sneering at him. I was listening, with as much intelligence as I possess to what he was saying about my constituents, and as far as I am concerned, I was not in any way interrupting him.

Mr. McENTEE: I could not help thinking that, the action of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was in keeping with the action of his colleagues when the last speaker was on his feet. If he did not mean it in the sense in which I have taken it, I am sorry that I mentioned his name al all. I was led to believe that his interruption and his action were a deliberate slur upon the men and women whom I represent in the House of Commons. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is your intelligence"] Some people can sit and listen intelligently and some cannot, and I think that the hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted me is one of those who cannot. The amount of suffering that will be entailed by the economy of £7,865,000 cannot be measured. I am a member of a local authority, and I understand that consultations have taken place with certain associations representing public bodies. The corporation of which I am a member would be represented at such consultations by the Association of Municipal
Corporations, but so far as I know, and I speak as one in close touch with my local authority, we have had no representation from the Association of Municipal Corporations in regard to the cutting down of road grants made to us, or of those that are contemplated. Recently sanction was given to the local authority in respect of £100,000 for road work. As soon as it became known that the money for the work had been sanctioned by the Ministry of Health, I and other Parliamentary representatives in the district were visited every week-night and on Sunday mornings by many men and women, the women pleading for work for their husbands and the men asking for a job for themselves. I suppose we shall have to go to those people and say that, because of a so-called national emergency —it is a bankers' emergency and not a national emergency—there is no work for them. They can go to the workhouse, or they can go to the guardians and get Poor Law relief. When we attempt to make our appeal to Ministers, hon. Members opposite take it as a joke. I would not have spoken had it not been for the attitude of hon. Members opposite. I want to register the strongest possible protest, that men who come here representing unemployed men in their constituencies should display a levity in regard to the position of those men which they would not dare to show if they were in front of the unemployed.
I hope that instead of lessening the grant the Government will increase it so that men may have a decent opportunity of earning a living, instead of having to go to the Poor Law and be branded as paupers for the rest of their lives. Judging from the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it seems little use asking for anything from him. His heart is undoubtedly hard. He is now supported and congratulated by hon. and right hon. Members who have always criticised him. Hon. Members opposite do not require financial assistance; but we who know the position of the working classes realise their position, and we

plead on their behalf. With our sympathy for humanity we are compelled to register our protest against this iniquitous scheme that has been put forward in the name of national emergency.

Mr. COCKS: I listened with great interest to the speeches of the Minister of Transport. So far as his personal attitude is concerned, no better person could have been selected for the position he now holds. It is quite clear from the Debate that he is bound hand and foot. He can give no answer. And there is not a single Member of the Cabinet present; they are treating the House with contempt. Where is the Prime Minister? Where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? There is a national crisis; this is an important Resolution; what is the Cabinet doing? They all run away and send here a row of office boys. The President of the Board of Education is there; what does he know about it? There is the Junior Lord of the Treasury; what does he know about it? In the interests of this House and of democratic government, as well as in the interests of private Members, I say that every Member of the Cabinet should be present. The Home Secretary was here just now: where has he gone?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: So far as the hon. Member has gone I can see no connection between his speech and the Resolution before the Committee.

Mr. COCKS: I will conclude by moving "That the CHAIRMAN do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The CHAIRMAN being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.

Question put,
That it is expedient to provide that advances to the Road Fund made under Section thirty-six of the Finance Act, 1931, shall be made out of moneys provided by Parliament instead of out of the Consolidated Fund.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 80.

Division No. 476.] 
AYES. 
[12.23 a.m. 


Acland-Troyto, Lieut.-Colonel
Asks, Sir Robert
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Albery, Irving James
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (J. of Thanet)


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atkinson, C.
Balniel, Lord


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Beaumont, M. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Penny, Sir George


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
George, Megan Lioyd (Anglesea)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gillett, George M.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Blindell, Jamas
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pybus, Percy John


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Boyce, Lesile
Gray, Milner
Ramsbotham, H.


Bracken, B.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Briscoe, Richard George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Remer, John R.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennelt


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hanbury, C.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Ron, Ronald D.


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rothschild, J. de


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. sir H. (Darwen)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbastor)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Ayimer
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Christie, J. A.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, Liewellyn-, F.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Savery, S. S.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Scott, James


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittoms


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Latham. H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colman, N. C. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cooper, A. Dull
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Smithers, Waldron


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handtw'th)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cranborne, Viscount
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lymington, Viscount
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. sir Godfrey
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thompson, Luke


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Thomson, Sir F.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Macquisten, F. A.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Train, J.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dickson, T.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Duckworth. G. A. V.
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Eden, Captain Anthony
Meller, R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wayland, Sir William A.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Wells, Sydney R.


Elmley, Viscount
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
White. H. G.


England, Colonel A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset. Weston-s-M.)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Muirhead, A. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Womersley, W. J.


Ferguson, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fleiden, E. B.
O'Connor, T. J.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Band)


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Foot, Isaac
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Ford, Sir P. J.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Major the Marquess of Titchfield and Mr. Glassey.


NOES.


Alpass, J. H.
Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Arnott, John
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Ede, James Chuter
Isaacs, George


Barr, James
Edmunds, J. E.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Egan, W. H.
Kelly, W. T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gibbins, Joseph
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gill, T. H.
Kinley, J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gossling, A. G.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Brooke, W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawrence, Susan


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Cooks. Frederick Seymour
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Compton, Joseph
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Longbottom, A. W.


Daggar, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Longden, F.




McEntee, V. L.
Romeril, H. G.
Strauss, G. R.


McKinlay, A.
Rowson, Guy
Tout, W. J.


McShane, John James
Scrymgeour, E.
Vaughan, David


Manning, E. L.
Scurr, John
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Mathers, George
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Maxton, James
Sherwood, G. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Messer, Fred
Shillaker, J. F.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Morley, Ralph
Simmons, C. J.
Wise, E. F.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sinkinson, George
Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sitch, Charles H.



Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Potts, John S.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Stephen, Campbell

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Government Order was read, and postponed.

It being alter half past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr.
DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes before One o'Clock.